ASIMOV'S
GUIDE TO _
THE «
BIBLE
TWO VO ID MIS IN ONi:
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
a n e ■ i »i
ISAACASIMOV
ASIMOVS
GUIDE TO
THE BIBLE
TWO VOLUMES IN ONE
ASIMOVS
GUIDE TO
THE BIBLE
TWO VOLUMES IN ONE
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
ISAAC ASIMOV
Maps by Rafael Palacios
WINGS BOOKS
NF.W YORK- AVENKL. NEW JERSEY
This book was previously published in two volumes as
Asimov's Guide to the Bible: Volume One, The Old Testament and
Asimov's Guide to the Bible: Volume Two, The New Testament
Copyright © MCMLXXXI by Isaac Asimov
Asimov's Guide to the Bible: Volume One, The Old Testament
Copyright © MCMLXVII by Isaac Asimov
Asimov's Guide to the Bible: Volume Two, The New Testament
Copyright © MCMLXIX by Isaac Asimov
All rights reserved under International and Pan- American
Copyright Conventions.
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic or mechanical including photo-
copying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
This edition is published by Wings Books, a division of Random
House Value Publishing, Inc., 40 Engelhard Avenue, Avenel,
New Jersey 07001, by arrangement with Doubleday &
Company, Inc.
Wings Books and colophon are trademarks of Random House
Value Publishing, Inc.
Random House
New York • Toronto • London • Sydney • Auckland
http://www.randomhouse.com/
Printed and bound in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Asimov, Isaac, 1920 —
Asimov's Guide to the Bible.
Reprint. Originally published in 2 v.:
Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1968-1969.
Includes indexes.
1. Bible — History of Biblical events. 2. Bible — Criticism,
interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Title: Guide to the Bible.
BS635.2.A8 1981 220.9'5 81-3537
ISBN 0-517-34582-X AACR2
30 29 28 27
CONTENTS
Volume One
Introduction 7
1. Genesis 15
2. Exodus 118
3. Leviticus 154
4. Numbers 165
5. Deuteronomy 193
6. Joshua 208
7. Judges 226
8. Ruth 261
9. 1 Samuel 267
10. 2 Samuel 297
11. 1 Kings 320
12. 2 Kings 35?
1 3. 1 Chronicles 397
14. 2 Chronicles 412
1 5. Ezra 430
16. Nehemiah 453
17. Esther 463
18. Job 474
19. Psalms 488
20. Proverbs 507
21. Ecclesiastes 512
22. The Song of Solomon 5 1 8
23. Isaiah 524
24. Jeremiah 555
25. Lamentations 581
26. Ezekiel 583
27. Daniel 596
28. Hosea 623
29. Joel 630
30. Amos 634
31.0badiah 639
32. Jonah 643
33. Micah 650
34. Nahum 655
35. Habakkuk 657
36. Zephaniah 658
37. Haggai 661
38. Zechariah 664
39. Malachi 670
Volume Two
1. Tobit 677
2. Judith 686
3. 1 Maccabees 696
4. 2 Maccabees 753
5. Matthew 766
6. Mark 903
7. Luke 912
8. John 952
9. Acts 995
10. Romans 1091
11. 1 Corinthians 1102
12. 2 Corinthians 1110
13. Galatians 1114
14. Ephesians 1119
15. Philippians 1122
16. Colossians 1128
17. 1 Thessalonians 1134
18. 2 Thessalonians 1137
19. 1 Timothy 1141
20. 2 Timothy 1144
21. Titus 1146
22. Philemon 1149
23. Hebrews 1152
24. James 1158
25. 1 Peter 1161
26. 2 Peter 1165
27. 1 John 1168
28. 2 John 1170
29. 3 John 1171
30. Jude 1172
31. 2 Esdras 1176
32. Revelation 1190
Dates of Interest in Biblical History,
Old and New Testament 1220
Index of Biblical Verses
Volume One, The Old Testament 1231
Volume Two, The New Testament 1241
Index of Subjects
Volume One, The Old Testament 1251
Volume Two, The New Testament 1279
INTRODUCTION
The most influential, the most published, the most widely read book
in the history of the world is the Bible. No other book has been
so studied and so analyzed and it is a tribute to the complexity of
the Bible and the eagerness of its students that after thousands of years
of study there are still endless books that can be written about it.
I have myself written two short books for young people on the
earlier books of the Bible* bat I have long wanted to take on a job
of more ambitious scope; one that I can most briefly describe as a
consideration of the secular aspects of the Bible.
Most people who read the Bible do so in order to get the benefit
of its ethical and spiritual teachings, but the Bible has a secular side,
too. It is a history book covering the first four thousand years of
human civilization.
The Bible is not a history book in modern sense, of course, since
its writers lacked the benefit of modem archaeological techniques,
did not have our concept of dating and documentation, and had dif-
ferent standards of what was and was not significant in history. Further-
more, Biblical interest was centered primarily on developments that
impinged upon those dwelling in Canaan, a small section of Asia
bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. This area makes only a small
mark on the history of early civilization (from the secular viewpoint)
and modern histories, in contrast to the Bible, give it comparatively
little space.
Nevertheless, for most of the last two thousand years, the Bible
has been virtually the only history book used in Western civilization.
Even today, it remains the most popular, and its view of ancient
history is still more widely and commonly known than is that of any
other.
So it happens, therefore, that millions of people today know of
Nebuchadnezzar, and have never heard of Pericles, simply because
Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned prominently in the Bible and Pericles
is never mentioned at all.
Millions know of Ahasuerus as a Persian king who married Esther,
even though there is no record of such an event outside the Bible.
Most of those same millions never suspect that he is better known
to modern historians as Xerxes and that the most important event
in his reign was an invasion of Greece that ended in utter defeat.
That invasion is not mentioned in the Bible.
* Words in Genesis and Words from the Exodus.
8
INTRODUCTION
Millions know certain minor Egyptian Pharaohs, such as Shishak
and Necho, who are mentioned in the Bible, but have never heard
of the great conquering Pharaoh, Thutmose III, who is not. People
whose very existence is doubtful, such as Nimrod and the queen of
Sheba, are household words because they are mentioned in the Bible,
while figures who were colossal in their day are sunk in oblivion
because they are not.
Again, small towns in Canaan, such as Shechem and Bethel, in
which events of the Bible are described as taking place, are more
familiar to us today than are large ancient metropolises such as Syracuse
or Egyptian Thebes, which are mentioned only glancingly in the
Bible, or not at all.
Moreover, usually only that is known about such places as happens
to be mentioned in the Bible. Ecbatana, the capital of the Median
Empire, is remembered in connection with the story of Tobit, but
its earlier and later history are dim indeed to most people, who might
be surprised to know that it still exists today as a large provincial
capital in the modern nation of Iran.
In this book, then, I am assuming a reader who is familiar with
the Bible, at least in its general aspects, but who knows little of
ancient history outside the Bible. I assume a reader who would be
interested in filling in the fringe, so to speak, and who would expect
much of the Bible to become easier to understand if some of the
places and people mentioned in it are made less mysterious. (After
all, those places and people were well known to the original readers
of the Bible, and it would be sad to allow so important a book
to grow needlessly murky with the passing of the centuries because
the periphery has grown dim and indistinct.)
I am attempting to correct this, in part at least. I will, for instance,
speculate on who Nimrod might have been, try to define the time
in which Abraham entered Canaan, place David's kingdom in its world
setting, sort out the role played by the various monarchs who are only
mentioned in the Bible when they fight against Israel and Judah, and
work out the relationships among the Herods encountered by Jesus
and the Apostles.
I am trying, in short, to bring in the outside world, illuminate it
in terms of the Biblical story and, in return, illuminate the events
of the Bible by adding to it the non-Biblical aspects of history, biography,
and geography.
In doing so, there will be the constant temptation (bom of the
INTRODUCTION
9
modem view of history) to bring in dates though few can be definitely
assigned to individual events in the Bible. It will be convenient then
to make use of a more or less arbitrary set of "periods" which will
chop history into sections that will make for easy reference.
The period from the beginning of the earliest civilizations, say 4000
b.c. to 100 a.d., can be lumped together as "the Biblical period." Of this
the period to 400 b.c. is "the Old Testament period," from 400 B.C. to
4 b.c. is the "inter-Testamental period," while the aj>. section is "the
New Testament period."
The Biblical period can be broken down into smaller sections as fol-
lows:
4000 B.c. to 2000 b.c, — The Primeval period
2000 b.c. to 1700 b.c. — The Patriarchal period
1700 b.c. to 1200 b.c. — The Egyptian period
1200 b.c. to 1000 b.c. — The Tribal period
1000 b.c. to 900 b.c. — The Davidic kingdom
Thereafter, it is most convenient to name periods after the peoples
who did, in fact, dominate western Asia. Thus:
900 b.c. to 600 b.c. — The Assyrian period
600 b.c. to 540 b.c — The Babylonian period
540 b.c. to 330 b.c. — The Persian period
330 b.c. to 70 b.c. — The Greek period
70 b.c. to 100 a j>. — The Roman period
During the last century of the Greek period, the Jews won a brief
independence under the Maccabees, so that the century from 170 b.c.
to 70 b.c. might be called "the Maccabean period."
I cannot pretend that in writing this book I am making any significant
original contribution to Biblical scholarship; indeed, I am not competent
to do so. All that I will have to say will consist of material well known
to students of ancient history. (There will, however, be a few places
where I will indulge in personal speculation, and label it as such.)
Nevertheless, it is my hope that this material, well known though
it may be in separate bits, will now be presented in a newly useful
way, since it will be collected and placed within the covers of a
moderately sized book, presented in one uniform manner, and in a
style and fashion which, it is hoped, will be interesting to the average
reader of the Bible.
I intend to be completely informal in this book, and to adhere
to no rigid rules. I won't invariably discuss a place or person at its
lO
INTRODUCTION
first appearance in the Bible, if it seems to me I can make more
sense out of it by bringing the matter up in a later connection. I
will not hesitate to leave a discussion incomplete if I plan to take it up
again later on. I will leave out items toward which I don't feel
I can contribute anything either useful or interesting, and I will,
without particular concern, allow myself to digress if I feel that the
digression will be useful.
Again, since this book is not intended to be a scholarly compendium,
I do not plan to burden its pages with such extraneous appurtenances
as footnotes giving sources. The sources that I use are, after all, very
general and ordinary ones.
First of all, of course, are various versions of the Bible:
a) The Authorized Version, originally published in 1611 and famil-
iarly known as the "King James Bible." This is the Bible used in the
various Protestant churches. It is the version which is most familiar to
most Americans and it is from this version that I quote, except where
otherwise indicated.
b) The Revised Standard Version, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1946,
1952, and 1959.
c) Saint Joseph "New Catholic Edition," Catholic Book Publishing
Co., 1962.
d) The Jerusalem Bible, Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1966.
e) The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic text, The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1955.
f ) I have leaned particularly heavily on those volumes of the Anchor
Bible (Doubleday) so far published, since these represent some of the
latest and most profound thinking on the Bible.
Much of the Apocrypha is contained in the "New Catholic Edition"
and, in addition, I have made use of the King James Version and the
Revised Standard Version of these books.
I have also consulted, quite steadily, A New Standard Bible Diction-
ary, Third Revised Edition, Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1936, The
Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon Press, 1929, and "Dictionary
of the Bible" by John L. McKenzie, S.J., Bruce Publishing Company,
1965.
In addition, I have turned to general encyclopedias, dictionaries,
histories, geographies, and any other reference books available to me
which could in any way be useful to me.
The result— well, the result can begin to be seen when you turn
the page.
VOLUME ONE
THE OLD TESTAMENT
To
Lawrence P. Ashmead
who has faith
1. GENESIS
GENESIS • COD " THE SEVENTH DAY * THE LORD GOD • MAN - EDEN * THE
EUPHRATES RIVER 'THE SERPENT "EVE * CAIN AND ABEL "NOD • ENOCH [OF
CAIN] * SETH • ENOCH [OF SETH] • ARARAT " HAM ' JAPHETH "■ CUSH •
NIMROD * ARAM • BABEL «UR OF THE CHALDEES * HARAN * CANAAN "EGYPT »
PHARAOH * JORDAN RIVER * HEBRON * AMRAPHEL * THE VALE OF SIDDIM "
REPHAIMS "SALEM • DAMASCUS "THE HITTITES * ISHMAEL • CIRCUMCISION *
SODOM AND GOMORRAH " MOAB AND AMMON • CERAR • BEERSHEBA *
PARAN • MORIAH " ARAM AND CHESED • MACHPELAH " MESOPOTAMIA •
SYRIA • MmiAN • EDOM " BETHEL * REUBEN AND HIS BROTHERS * SEER •
ISRAEL ' SHECHEM * HAM OR THE HTVTTE 1 EPHRATH • BIUHAH • AM ALEE * SEIR
THE HORTTE "BELA AND JOBAB "POTIPHAR "FHAREZ AND ZARAH "PHARAOH
[OF JOSEPH] "THE RIVER [NILE] "ON "GOSHEN • EFHRAIM AND MANASSEH *
JUDAH
Genesis
The Bible begins at the logical place— the beginning. The very
first verse starts:
Genesis 1:1. In the beginning . . .
The phrase "In the beginning" is a translation of the Hebrew word
bereshith. In the case of several of the books of the Bible, the first
word is taken as the title of the whole (much as Papal bulls are
named for the two Latin words with which they begin.) The Hebrew
name of the first book is, there, Bereshith.
The Bible was first translated into another language in the course of
the third century b.c. and that other language was Greek. This Greek
version was, according to tradition, based on the work of seventy
learned scholars, and it is therefore known as the Septuagint, from a
Latin word meaning "seventy."
In the Septuagint, the various books of the Bible were, naturally
GENESIS 17
enough, given Greek names. The Hebrew habit of using the first
words as the name was not followed, and descriptive names were used
instead.
The first book was named "Genesis," which means, literally, "coming
into being." It implies a concern with births and beginnings which
is appropriate for a book that begins with the creation of heaven
and earth.
By ancient tradition, the first five books of the Bible were written
by Moses, the folk hero who, according to the account given in the
second through fifth books, rescued the Israelites from Egyptian slavery.
Modern scholars are convinced that this theory of authorship is not
tenable and that the early books of the Bible are not the single
work of any man. Rather, they are the combined and carefully edited
version of a number of sources. Despite this, the full name of the
first book of the Bible as commonly given in English translation re-
mains "The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis."
The first five books of the Bible give not only the traditional
history of the ancestors of the Israelite people, but also describe a
legal code as having been given to Moses by God and by Moses
to the Israelites generally. Because of Moses' traditional role in what
was, in actual fact, a set of laws that developed slowly over the centuries,
the whole is termed the "Mosaic law" or, more simply still, "the Law."
The Hebrew word for the first five books is "Torah," which is the
Hebrew word for "law."
The Greek word for the first five books is "Pentateuch" ("five
books"). In recent times, it has been recognized that the sixth book of
the Bible is closely connected with the first five and is derived from simi-
lar sources. All six books may be referred to as the "Hexateuch" ("six
books").
God
The Bible centers about God, and God is brought into the tale
at once:
Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth.
i8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Hebrew word, translated here as God, is "Elohim" and that
is a plural form which would ordinarily (if tradition were defied) be
translated "gods." It is possible that in the very earliest traditions on
which the Bible is based, the creation was indeed the work of a
plurality of gods. The firmly monotheistic Biblical writers would care-
fully have eliminated such polytheism, but could not perhaps do any-
thing with the firmly ingrained term "Elohim." It was too familiar
to change.
Some hints of polytheism seem to have survived the editing. Thus,
after the first created man disobeys God's injunction not to eat of the
tree of knowledge, God is quoted as saying:
Genesis 3:22. . . . Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
know good and evil . . .
Then, too, still later, when God is concerned over mankind's ar-
rogance in attempting to build a tower that would reach to heaven,
He is quoted as saying:
Genesis 11:7. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their
language . . ,
It is possible to argue that this is not true evidence of early poly-
theism. God might be viewed as using the royal "we"; or as speaking
to an angelic audience; or even, in the Christian view, as speaking in
the persons of the Trinity.
Nevertheless, as far as we know the history of religion outside the
Bible, early beliefs were always polytheistic and monotheism was a
late development in the history of ideas.
The Seventh Day
Carefully and sparely, and with great vigor and beauty, the first
thirty-four verses of the Bible tell the story of creation. Six acts of
creation are described as taking place on six successive days:
Genesis 2:2. And on the seventh day God ended his work . . .
and . . . rested . . .
Genesis 2:3. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified
it . . .
GENESIS 19
This marks the traditional establishment of the Sabbath— a day
separated from the ordinary days of the week and dedicated to God.
The role played by the Sabbath in Judaism was quite small at
first, and quite enormous in the end. The dividing line comes at one
of the great watersheds in Jewish history— the Babylonian Exile. This
took place in the sixth century b.c. and will be dealt with extensively
later in the book. It is that sixth-century dividing line to which I
will refer when I say something is pre-Exilic or post-Exilic.
In pre-Exilic times the Sabbath is barely mentioned and seems to
have been of little consequence among the Israelites. In post-Exilic
times, its observance was of the greatest importance and Jews died
rather than violate that observance.
It is tempting to suppose that the Sabbath was Babylonian in origin,
and that it gained new significance to the Jews in exile (see page
576). Nor can one fairly use the first chapters of Genesis as evidence
for the great antiquity of the Sabbath in its holiest form, since it is
widely accepted these days that the creation tale received its present
shape after the Babylonian Exile and was, in fact, a version of the
Babylonian creation myth, purified of polytheism and grossness, and
put into the loftiest and most abstract terms of which the Jewish
priesthood was capable.
The creation tale is typical of those portions of the first few books
of the Bible that were put into final form by priestly hands soon
after the time of the Exile. Such portions are part of the "Priestly
document" and are usually designated as P by Biblical scholars. The
Priestly document is characterized by impersonality and by a heavy
reliance on statistics and genealogies.
The Lord God
Once the P version of creation is ended, a new version begins:
Genesis 2:4. These are the generations of the heavens and of
the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God
made the earth and the heavens.
The distinctive feature here is the sudden use of the term "Lord
God," where throughout the first thirty-four verses the Deity had been
referred to as simply "God."
20
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Hebrew word, here translated as "Lord," is made up of four
Hebrew letters, which can be written in English as YHVH, and which
are expressed, traditionally but mistakenly, as "Jehovah" for reasons to
be given later (see page 135). Modem scholars believe "Yahveh" is
the more accurate presentation.
Where "god" is a general term for any deity, and where the capital-
ized form "God" expresses the one Deity of the Bible, Yahveh is the
specific name of that specific Deity. Names were of considerable im-
portance to ancient man, for they were considered an extension of
personality. To be able to pronounce the name was to be able (accord-
ing to folklore) to control the being named. Names were therefore
tools of magic and Jews of post-Exilic times disapproved of magic,
not because they did not believe in its reality, but because the magic
was usually performed in the names of heathen idols.
The name of God came to be avoided on principle, therefore.
When it did occur in some of the traditional sources of the early books
of the Bible or in the writings of the prophets of pre-Exilic times,
pious Jews took to saving Adonai ("Lord") instead. This euphemism
was accepted in English translation and what might have been given
as "the God, Yahveh" is given as "the Lord God" instead.
The use of the term "the Lord God" ("Yahveh Elohim") in place
of God ("Elohim") is characteristic of a particular early strand of
tradition which was incorporated into the Hexateuch. This strand is
known as the "J document" because of its characteristic use of
"Jehovah" ("Yahveh") in connection with God.
There is another strand of early tradition which like the P document
uses simply Elohim for God, and it is the "E document." Both J and
E are much more personal than P, tell stories with circumstantial detail
and do not greatly interest themselves in the more formal aspects of
the matter.
The J document may have been put into written form as early
as the ninth century in the more southerly of the two kingdoms into
which the Israelites were then divided. This was the kingdom of Judah.
The E document was put into written form a century later in the
northern kingdom of Israel.
The dominant tribe in the northern kingdom was Ephraim and
that was sometimes used as a poetic synonym for Israel. There is
thus the interesting coincidence that the J document can stand for
GENESIS 21
Judah as well as Jehovah, and the E document for Ephraim as well as
Elohim.
The northern kingdom was destroyed toward the end of the eighth
century b.c. and the priests of Judah incorporated E into their own
J tradition. This made the primitive history of their ancestors more
complete, but also introduced occasional duplications, with the same
tale told twice, once with a northern orientation and once with a
southern. Despite the careful dovetailing of verses, such duplicate ver-
sions can be dissected and identified.
During and after the Babylonian Exile, the priesthood took this
combined JE version, added P material of their own, and produced
Genesis as we have it now. It is not my purpose, in this book, to
untwine Genesis and identify the source of each verse (something
that is done in the Anchor Bible, for instance) but it is well to know
that different sources do exist
Man
In fs tale of creation (more primitive than that of P) God does not
call human beings into existence by spoken command alone. Rather,
he shapes them out of clay as a sculptor might:
Genesis 2:7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man be-
came a living soul.
The word "man" is a translation of the Hebrew word adam, which
is a general expression rather akin to what we mean when we say "man-
kind." (The Hebrew word for an individual man is ish.)
The word adam, used in reference to this first created man, came to be
a proper name, Adam. The King James version slips into this usage later
in the chapter:
Genesis 2:19. . . .the Lord God formed every beast . . . and every
fowl . . . and brought them unto Adam . . .
Actually, the Hebrew does not seem to make use of Adam as a
proper name until the beginning of the fifth chapter:
Genesis 5:1. This is the book of the generations of Adam . . .
22
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
and the Jerusalem Bible, for instance, is careful to translate adam as
"man" up to that very point.
After forming man, God breathes life into him, a reminder that in
primitive times, the breath was often equated with life for what seemed
obvious reasons.
Dead creatures no longer breathed, and breath was invisible and
impalpable and therefore seemed a fitting representation of that mysteri-
ous something that left the body at the moment of death. Indeed, the
word "soul" used in Genesis 2:7 is a translation of the Hebrew nephesh,
which means "breath."
Eden
Having formed man, God also prepares a dwelling place for him
and that involves the mention of the first definite place name in the
Bible:
Genesis 2:8. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in
Eden . . .
Notice that it is not the garden itself that is named Eden. One cannot
speak of "Eden" as though it were synonymous with the garden, any
more than one can speak of "California" as though it were synonymous
with Yosemite Park.
The garden is planted somewhere in a land called Eden and the
location of that land is "eastward"; eastward, that is, from Canaan,
which is the focal point of reference of the Biblical story and the home
of both the writers and the original readers of Genesis.
The question, then, is: Where is Eden?
There have been numerous answers to this question, some of them
exceedingly farfetched, and no definite answer acceptable to all is possi-
ble. And yet, if we were to try the simplest and most direct possible
line of thought, a reasonable solution will offer itself.
In the first place, suppose we consider the geography of the region
not as it was at the time the ancient Jews believed creation to have taken
place (roughly 4000 b.c. by modem dating convention) but as it was in
the much later time when the material in the Book of Genesis was re-
duced to writing.
Genesis is based, to some extent, on very ancient traditions, but these
GENESIS 23
The Garden of Eden
traditions were not reduced to writing until the ninth century B.C. at
the earliest. Some strands of the book were not written until sev-
eral centuries later and the whole was not unified and put together into
the form we now have until the fifth century B.C.
The geographical references in Genesis must therefore refer to the
situation as it was from the ninth to the fifth centuries b.c. (the Assyrian
period and somewhat later) if they were to have meaning to the writer
and reader.
Thus, if someone were to write a book, today, about the fourteenth-
century American Indians, he might well write of "the Indian tribes
that inhabited what is now the United States." To save space, he might
speak elliptically of "the Indians of the United States," taking it for
granted that the readers would realize the United States did not actu-
ally exist in the fourteenth century and would not be confused. In an-
cient times, when every copy of a book was produced by hand and not
by the printing press, the need to be economical with words was far
greater. It was not to be expected that anyone would write, "And the
Lord God planted a garden eastward in the land which we now call
Eden."
So we must ask ourselves where Eden was during the Assyrian period;
and the Bible tells us that quite plainly. It refers to Eden several times—
not as a mystical primeval site of a garden in which Adam and Eve
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
roamed, but as a prosaic everyday land which was conquered by the
Assyrians in the eighth century B.C.
Thus, when the Assyrian hosts of Sennacherib were laying siege to
Jerusalem in 701 B.C., they sent a message to the men guarding the
walls of the city, warning them not to rely on their God for salvation,
as the gods of other nations had not saved those nations from conquest
by the Assyrians:
2 Kings 19:12. Have the gods of the nations delivered . . . Gozan,
and hlaran and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in
Thelasar?
Thelasar ("Tel-assar" in the Revised Standard Version) is the name of
an Assyrian province, mentioned as "Til-asuri" in Assyrian inscriptions.
It extended on both sides of the middle reaches of the Euphrates River
and so was, indeed, "eastward" from Canaan— about four hundred miles
due east, in fact.
And yet, even so, it is not necessary to suppose that the Biblical writer
intended the specific, relatively small, area of Eden in the province of
Thelasar. Place names have a tendency to broaden out and grow diffuse
with time. Thus "Asia," which originally referred to the western section
of what is now the nation of Turkey, spread out to include an entire vast
continent, while "Africa," originally signifying the northern portion of
the modem nation of Tunisia, spread out to include a continent almost
as vast.
Consequently, Eden might well have been used not only as a specific
geographical term, but also as a rather general one for the entire valley of
the Euphrates River. This makes sense, too, for if the Bible makes Eden
the original home of the human race, archaeology has revealed that on
the banks of the Euphrates River there arose one of the earliest (if not
the earliest) of civilizations.
By 3000 B.C., powerful cities dotted the banks of the Euphrates, an
elaborate network of irrigation canals was in use, writing had been in-
vented, and, in general, man as a civilized being was in existence.
The Euphrates River
By the time the Book of Genesis was being reduced to writing in its
final form, the editor who was arranging the various source materials
CENESIS 25
The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers
must have realized that "Eden" had become a vague term and he set
about defining the location of the garden more precisely in terms that
undoubtedly made sense at the time, but that have become much less
clear with the passage of over two thousand additional years.
He set up his definition by placing Eden and its garden at or near the
junction of important rivers:
Genesis 2:10. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and
from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
Genesis 2:11. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which com-
passeth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
26
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Genesis 2:12. And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium
and the onyx stone.
Genesis 2:13. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same
is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
Genesis 2:14. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it
which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is
Euphrates.
The rivers are listed in order of increasing familiarity to the writer so
that the fourth river, the Euphrates, is merely mentioned. No need is
felt to locate it by describing the regions it traverses. This is understand-
able since the Euphrates was familiar to the Jews of the Assyrian period
and before and parts of it were not very distant. Indeed, in the time of
David, when the Jewish kingdom was at its most extensive and powerful,
its northern boundary lay on the upper Euphrates.
The Euphrates was known to the Assyrians as "Pu-rat-tu" from a still
earlier term which meant "great river." The Hebrew term used in the
Bible is "Perath," clearly a form of the Assyrian name, and our word
"Euphrates" originated with the Greeks, who converted the strange
Assyrian syllables into a set that made more sense to their own ears.
(The English Bible has reached us, to a large extent, from the Hebrew,
via first Greek, then Latin. Many Hebrew names reach us in Graeco-
Latin form therefore. In general, the Catholic version of the Bible clings
more closely to the Graeco-Latin, where the King James Version and
even more the Revised Standard Version tend to return to the original
Hebrew.)
The Euphrates is indeed a "great river." It is the longest river in
southwestern Asia, flowing for seventeen hundred miles. Two streams
rise in eastern Turkey, the more northerly only seventy-five miles south
of the Black Sea. They flow west separately for about two hundred
miles, then join to form the Euphrates. Flowing south now, the river ap-
proaches within a hundred miles of the Mediterranean Sea, enters Syria
and turns southeast, leaving Syria and passing through Iraq until it
finally pours its waters into the Persian Gulf. Though rising and passing
so closely to seas that open into the Atlantic Ocean, the river reaches
the Indian Ocean at last.
It is a sluggish river that is navigable for quite a distance. During the
spring the melting of snow in the mountainous source area causes its
level to rise in a slow, potentially useful flooding. Properly controlled,
GENESIS
2 7
this water supply can be used to turn the nearby land into a garden of
fertility and productivity, and throughout the Biblical period irrigation
canals were used in this manner.
The third river of Eden is the Hiddekel, which is the Hebrew version
of the Assyrian "i-di-ik-lat." It is described in Genesis 2:14 as going
"toward the east of Assyria"; that is, forming the eastern boundary of
Assyria, and this assuredly was not so. Assyria was an extensive domain in
the centuries when Genesis was written and lay on both sides of the
river. However, Assyria is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Ashur," which
applied not only to the nation, but to its original capital city. It is the
city that is meant here and the Hiddekel does indeed skirt the city on
the east.
The Hiddekel is not as long as the Euphrates, but its length is quite
respectable just the same— 1150 miles. It is more turbulent than the
Euphrates and is not really navigable except for small boats and rafts. It
is perhaps because of the savage danger of its turbulence that the Greeks
gave it the name "Tigris" ("tiger"), the name by which we know it to-
day.
The fact that the Biblical description of the rivers of Eden mentions
"a river [that] . . . was parted, and became into four heads" might lead
one to think that the Tigris and Euphrates (along with the other two
rivers mentioned) must have a single source. This is almost so. One of
the sources of the Tigris River is a lake in eastern Turkey that lies only a
dozen miles south of one of the streams that go to make up the Eu-
phrates.
There might therefore be a strong temptation to attempt to locate the
garden of Eden specifically in eastern Turkey, except that there is no
need to suppose that the writers of Genesis felt obliged to make use of
our modern geographical conventions.
When we say that a river parrs into two or more streams, we take it for
granted that we are imagining ourselves to be moving downstream. But
suppose two rivers join as they move downstream. If you follow the
joined river upstream you will find it will part into the two rivers.
Let's see how this applies to the Euphrates and the Tigris. The two
rivers flow southeastward in almost parallel fashion. At one point, about
350 miles from the Persian Gulf, they approach within twenty-five miles
of each other, then move apart before approaching again.
In the time of the earliest civilizations that rose in the region, the
Euphrates and the Tigris entered the Persian Gulf by separate mouths,
28
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
that of the Tigris being almost a hundred miles east of that of the Eu-
phrates.
At that time, however, the Persian Gulf extended about 175 miles
further northwestward than it now does. The rivers, flowing south-
westward from the Turkish mountains, carried mud and silt with them,
slowly forming a delta that filled in the upper end of the narrow Persian
Gulf, moving the seacoast 175 miles southeastward in six thousand years.
The Tigris and Euphrates had to continue flowing over the new land
as it formed. As it happened, the Tigris flowed south and the Euphrates
east. Eventually they met to form a single joined river, now known as the
Shatt-al-Arab, which is 120 miles long.
At the time the Book of Genesis was reduced to writing, the Tigris and
the Euphrates had already joined to form the common stream and surely
the reference in Genesis 2:10 is to the parting (working upstream) of
the Shatt-al-Arab into the Tigris and the Euphrates. The reference to the
garden of Eden would then be, specifically, to the lower stretches of
those two rivers, near where they come together and as it happens, it was
precisely there (in the days before the two rivers had yet come together)
that civilization arose.
That leaves the first and second rivers of the garden, the Pison and
the Gihon. Neither river can be identified, though glamorous guesses
have been made for each. Thus, the Pison ("Pishon," in the Revised
Standard Version) "compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there
is gold . . . bdellium and the onyx stone." (The Anchor Bible has
'lapis-lazuli" in place of the onyx stone.)
Havilah is thus pictured as a land of wealth, where one can find gold
and other precious material. In searching for a fabled land of wealth that
will represent Havilah, later Europeans had a tendency to fix upon India
with its proverbial "wealth of the Indies." In that case, the Pison (or
Pishon) might be the Indus River, the long river— as long as the Eu-
phrates—that drains what is now Pakistan, flowing into the Arabian Sea.
As for the Gihon, that seems to be clearly described as compassing
"the whole land of Ethiopia." Ethiopia was, in ancient times, a land to
the south of Egypt, and a nation bearing that name is still located about
five hundred miles south of Egypt nowadays. A tributary of the Nile
River rises in Ethiopia and it seems logical to suppose, then, that the
Gihon is the Nile River.
If we go no farther in our reasoning, then, the four rivers of Eden
would be the Indus, the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates, in that
GENESIS
2 9
order. This is an intriguing guess. There are only two civilizations, as
far as is known, that compete in age with that in the Tigris-Euphrates
region. One arose on the banks of the Nile and the other on the banks of
the Indus.
And yet the picture cannot be correct. Neither the Indus nor the Nile
comes anywhere near the Tigris and Euphrates. The closest approach of
the Indus to the Tigris-Euphrates is twelve hundred miles and the closest
approach of the Nile is nine hundred, and this certainly does not gibe
with the Biblical statement that the four rivers all come together.
(While not everything in the Bible can be taken literally, it must cer-
tainly be supposed that the Biblical writers could tell when four rivers
came together in a region of the world known to them.)
Let's consider the land of Havilah first. Whatever it is, it can't be
India, since a word for India does occur in the Book of Esther and, in
Hebrew, it is "Hoddu." Havilah itself is mentioned elsewhere, notably in
Genesis 25.18 where it is described as part of the region in which the
descendants of Ishmael live:
Genesis 25:18. And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is be-
fore Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria . . .
It is reasonably certain that the Ishmaelites were tribes of the Arabian
borderland, southeast of Canaan and southwest of the Tigris-Euphrates
and so, without trying to pin it down too carefully, we can suppose that
Havilah was somewhere south of the Euphrates River.
If this is so, then the Pison (Pishon) may have been a tributary of
the Euphrates, flowing into its lower stretches from Havilah to the
south and west. It may not have been an important stream and, in the
gradual desiccation of the area that has taken place in recent ages, it
may have disappeared. (It may even have been a man-made canal, con-
fused by the Biblical writer with a natural stream.)
And what about Ethiopia? That is far off in Africa. The Hebrew
word, which is here translated as Ethiopia in the King James Version, is
"Cush." Undoubtedly, there are occasions in the Bible where Cush does
indeed refer to the region south of Egypt and where it is justifiably
translated as Ethiopia. Very likely, this is not one of those places. In-
deed, in the Revised Standard Version, the Gihon is described as flowing
around the "land of Cush." The word is left in its Hebrew form and no
attempt is made to equate it with Ethiopia.
More often than not, the Biblical Cush refers to some Arabian tribe.
3°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
There is a reasonable possibility that the word "Cush" in Genesis 2:13
refers to the land of the people whom the ancient Greek geographers
spoke of as the Kossaeans, and whom modem historians refer to as the
Kassites. They dwelt east of the Tigris and had a period of greatness in
the centuries before the rise of Assyria, for between 1600 and 1200 B.C.,
the Kassites controlled the great civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates.
If this is so, then the Gihon may have been a tributary (now gone)
of the Tigris, flowing in from the east— or, possibly, another man-made
canal.
We are thus left with the following situation. The Pison (Pishon)
joins the Euphrates near its ancient mouth and the Gihon joins the Ti-
gris near its ancient mouth. The two double rivers then join in the new
land gradually formed afterward. The four rivers all come together over
a reasonably small area and the very ancient civilization that rose in that
area may represent the historical kernel within the story of the garden of
Eden.
This region was called, in the primeval period, by a name which we
now render as "Sumer" or "Sumeria." In the Sumerian language, the
word eden means "plain." No one knows where, exactly, the Sumerians
came from, but if, as seems likely, they originally entered the area from
the hilly regions to the east, they may well have thought of themselves
as coming "to Eden"; that is, "to the plain."
If so, then the term "Eden" may point specifically at Sumeria, and its
identification with the later Eden farther up the Euphrates may be
accidental (even though it pointed us in the right direction).
In Hebrew, eden means "delight" or "enjoyment," which seems ap-
propriate for the garden, but this is, in all likelihood, merely a fortunate
etymological accident since Hebrew and Sumerian are not related lan-
guages. (In fact, Sumerian is not related to any known language.)
Nevertheless, the accidental Hebrew meaning helped crystallize the feel-
ing that Eden might be a mystical term without actual geographic
meaning and that the place originally inhabited by mankind was merely
"the garden of delight" with no place name at all.
One more speculation is possible. By 2500 B.C., centuries before
Abraham was born, the Sumerians had already passed their peak. New
tribes from the north, the Akkadians, took over "the plain" and harder
times must have come for the Sumerians, who were now a conquered
people. They must have looked back nostalgically to the great days of
"the plain."
GENESIS 31
Can the Biblical tale of the glorious garden of Eden, lost forever,
have been a reflection, at least in part, of the Sumerian longing for a
past that had vanished?
The Serpent
After Adam is settled in the garden of Eden, God grants him the right
to full enjoyment of its delights, with one exception. He says:
Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
thou shalt not eat . . .
God creates a woman as a companion for Adam, forming her out of
the man's rib. Presumably the two might have lived in the garden in
eternal happiness as long as they respected God's prohibition. There
was, however, a spoiler in the garden:
Genesis 3:1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of
the field . . .
The serpent is portrayed as able to speak and as maneuvering the
naive woman into eating the forbidden fruit in defiance of God's
prohibition. The woman then encouraged Adam to eat it as well.
As told here, the serpent's evil is motiveless or, at best, arises out of
mere delight in mischief. The Jews of post-Exilic times made this seem
more reasonable, however, by equating the serpent with Satan, who is
the spirit of Evil as God is the spirit of Good. (This notion was derived
from Persian religious thought— see page 409.)
Actually, the tale of the serpent is quite un-Biblical in atmosphere.
Only here and in one other case (that of Balaam's ass, see page 184) do
the Hebrew scriptures mention talking animals. It seems quite likely that
the tale of the serpent is extremely primitive and represents a remnant of
nature myth (see page 175).
Eve
Because of the disobedience of the man and woman, who ate of the
fruit of the tree despite prohibition, God drives them out of Eden.
They may no longer live easily by food gathering but are condemned to
the heavy labor of agriculture.
3 2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Several thousand years before the dawn of recorded history, agricul-
ture had been invented somewhere in southwestern Asia. Agriculture
gave man a more plentiful and more dependable food supply and made
possible a large increase in population in those areas where it was prac-
ticed. Because crops were immobile and had to be cared for, farmers had
to remain in one place. For mutual protection, they gathered in villages
which gradually became cities and thus arose "civilization" (from a
Latin word for "city-dweller").
Despite the material benefits brought to man by agriculture, it is quite
likely that those who were used to the free wandering irresponsibility of
hunting and food gathering (a life that probably seemed a great deal
more fun in retrospect than in reality) could not help but view agricul-
ture as a kind of detestable slavery.
Might it not be, then, that a second strand of historical significance to
the tale of the expulsion from Eden includes a dim memory of the
unfavorable aspects of the changeover to agriculture?
Once the man and his wife took up their life outside the garden, the
man gave his wife a name:
Genesis 3:20. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she
was the mother of aU living.
At the time these traditions were being reduced to writing, it was
customary for Jews to give names with straightforward Hebrew meanings
(usually with religious significance.) Thus, Jehoshaphat means 'Tahveh
has judged"; Ezekiel means "God strengthens"; Hananiah means
'Tahveh is gracious" and so on.
The names of the men and women in the earliest traditions were
often not in Hebrew and, therefore, were not of clear significance.
The Biblical writers, searching for the meaning they felt ought to be in
all names, would spot a resemblance to some Hebrew word or phrase
and invent an explanation around it.
Thus the Hebrew name equivalent to our own Eve is Hawah, which
has a similarity of sound to hayah, meaning "to live." (Actually, the
initial "h" is a guttural sound not found in our language but similar to
the German "ch.") Since Eve is regarded as the mother of the human
race, it is tempting to equate Hawah and hayah and say that she
received the name because she was the mother of all living. This is
an example of "folk etymology," in which the Bible abounds. The real
meaning of Hawah or Eve is, of course, unknown.
CENESIS
33
Cain and Abel
Adam and Eve had children:
Genesis 4:1. And . . . Eve . . . bare Cain, and said, I have gotten
a man from the Lord.
Genesis 4:2. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was
a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
The name Cain ("Kayin" in Hebrew) is usually taken to mean
"smith." In the early days of civilization, the use of metals was intro-
duced and the new material became exceedingly important both in
ornamentation and in the manufacture of weapons for hunting and war-
fare. Men who could prepare the metals and work them into the neces-
sary shapes were important and highly regarded artisans. To be a smith
and be called one was a matter of honor, and to this day "Smith" is a
common surname among the English and Americans.
This meaning of Cain seems clearer in a later use of the word, in the
same chapter, as part of the name of a descendant of Cain:
Genesis 4:22. And Zillah . . . bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of
every artificer in brass and iron . . .
"Tubal-cain" means "smith of Tubal," where Tubal is a district in
Asia Minor. In the centuries immediately preceding the period during
which the legends in Genesis were reduced to writing, the techniques
for obtaining iron from its ore were worked out in Asia Minor. The
smiths of Tubal would therefore have become famous for producing
iron weapons superior to anything that had been seen before, and the
smiths of Tubal, "Tubal-cain," might well have entered legend as the
founders of metallurgy.
Nevertheless, during the Exilic period, some clearly Hebrew meaning
for the word was sought for and found in the similarity of kayin to
kanah, meaning "to get." Eve was therefore made to say "I have gotten
a man of the Lord" and to name her son something that was reminis-
cent of her first words on learning of his birth. Thus, the etymology
was set.
Cain and Abel seem to represent the fanner and the herdsman (or
nomad) respectively. The early histories are written from the standpoint
34
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of the farmers, the settled city-men, and in them the nomads are viewed
as barbaric raiders, ruthless and bloodthirsty.
It was the fanners who multiplied, however, and it was civilization
that spread. Nomads could triumph when internal dissensions weakened
the city-men, but in the long run, civilization had the men, organiza-
tion, and the advanced weapons that could be produced in quantity
only by an elaborate technology. (Cain was not only a farmer, he was
also a smith.)
In the end, civilization won completely, and that eventual and inevi-
table victory must have been foreseen long before it came to pass. The
tale (briefly and obscurely told) of how Cain grew jealous of Abel and
killed him may be, in part, a remnant of some nomadic lament over the
all-encroaching tentacles of settled civilization.
In fact, the very name Abel ("Hebel" in Hebrew) means "a puff of
air," seeming to imply the briefness and instability of the nomadic way
of life against the steady push of the farmer. (We experienced a similar
period in American history toward the end of the nineteenth century
when the nomadic "cowboy" of the West had to give way, at last, to
the plodding farmer and his barbed-wire fences.)
The name Abel may also be related to the Babylonian aplu, mean-
ing "son." This would indicate a possible Sumerian origin for the tale.
Nod
After Cain murders Abel, he is driven away:
Genesis 4:16. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord,
and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
No one has tried to identify the "land of Nod" with any actual specific
region and it is usually taken to be a metaphorical expression. The
Hebrew word "Nod" is related to the term meaning "wanderer"; there-
fore to dwell in the land of Nod is taken to mean that one takes up a
wandering life and becomes a nomad.
Here we seem to have a second strand incorporated into the ancient
tale. Now we are dealing not with Cain the farmer and smith, but with
Cain the nomad.
If Eden is taken to be Sumeria, then the region "east of Eden" would
be that known as Elam. Elam, in what is now southwestern Iran,
GENESIS
35
developed a civilization quite early, borrowing no doubt from the
Sumerians. Its early history is very dim but there seems to have been
intermittent warfare between Elam and whatever power ruled the Tigris-
Euphrates for three thousand years.
Is it possible, then, that the story of Cain and Abel might be a
combination of a villainous Elam attacking a blameless Sumeria (as
told by the Sumerians) and a villainous farmer attacking a blameless no-
mad (as told by the nomads)?
Enoch [of Cain]
In Nod (despite its name) Cain seems to have settled down. He
married, had a son:
Genesis 4:17. . . . and he huilded a city, and called the name of
the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Perhaps this is a dim reference to the ancient transition of a pastoral
Elam to the ways of civilization. There is no record of any city named
Enoch, but it is conceivable that this might be the city that eventually
became known to later history as Susa. This dates back to the Stone Age
and for thousands of years was the chief city of Elam.
The remainder of the fourth chapter deals quickly with the succeeding
descendants of Cain, including Tubal-cain. The book of Genesis then
returns to Adam to follow the line of descent that leads to the Israelites.
Seth
Adam has a third son:
Genesis 5:3. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and
begat a son . . . and called his name Seth.
This chapter is a portion of P again, and as generation after genera-
tion is given, the statistical data is carefully included. The age of each
individual is given at the time of the birth of his first son, and at the
time of his death.
Genesis 5:5. And all the days that Adam lived -were nine hundred
and thirty years: and he died.
3 6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
These ages were legendary, reflecting parts of earlier Babylonian tales
picked up by the Jews during the Exile and modified by the priesthood
according to some unknown principle of their own. Nevertheless, those
who feel every word of the Bible to be literally true have tried to make
use of these figures (and of others given here and there in the Bible)
to calculate the year in which Adam was born, and the universe
created.
The Jews of the Middle Ages calculated the date of the creation to
have been October 7, 3761 B.C., and this is still used in calculating the
number of the year in the Jewish calendar. Thus, September 1968 a.d. is
the beginning of the year 5729 by that calendar.
Christian theologians have come up with a variety of dates for the
creation. The most familiar of these is one worked out by James Ussher,
an Anglican archbishop of Armagh, Ireland. In 1654, ne decided that
the creation had taken place in 4004 b.c. (at 9 a.m. of October 23 of
that year, according to some) . The date 4004 b.c. is often found at the
head of the first pages of the Bible in editions of the King James version.
Actually 4004 b.c. isn't a bad date for the establishment of historic
times. Man began to have a history in the proper sense only after writing
had been invented, and writing was invented a little before 3000 b.c.
However, the first cities had been organizd as early as 8000 b.c. and pre-
historic man (or creatures recognizably similar to man) have left re-
mains that are well over a million years old.
The earth itself is some five billion years old and the universe as a
whole perhaps fifteen billion years old.
Enoch [of Seth]
The descendants of Adam, through Seth, are then listed through eight
generations (ten, counting Adam and Seth themselves) somewhat less
hastily than those of Cain were mentioned. As a group, these are the
antediluvian patriarchs. (A patriarch is the head of a tribe and by
"antediluvian" is meant "before the Flood.")
The names of the line of Seth are suspiciously like those of the line of
Cain, however. Both include an Enoch and a Lamech, and other names,
if not identical, are very similar. It is possible that the two lines represent
the same legendary material, one given by J and the other by P.
The antediluvian patriarchs are notable for their ages. Several, includ-
CENESIS 37
ing Adam himself, lived nearly a thousand years. The record holder is
Methuselah (whose name has become a byword for age) who attained
the age of 969 years.
These patriarchs cannot be associated with any historical personages
and nothing is known of them beyond this bare Biblical mention. They
seem, however, to be a reflection of Sumerian legend. At least, the
Sumerians had lists of nine or ten kings who reigned before the Flood,
each of them living for many thousands of years. One was listed as
having reigned nearly 65,000 years. The writer of this portion of Genesis,
far from imposing on credibility by making use of extended life spans,
apparently took legendary material and did his best to cut those ages
down to reasonable size.
What's more, throughout the Hexateuch, the writers kept steadily
reducing the ages attained by the chief figures in the tales though even
at the end these were still boasting life spans somewhat in excess of a
hundred years.
Of the antediluvian patriarchs, one attains an age markedly different
from the others. This is Enoch, the father of Methuselah.
Genesis 5:23. And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty
and five years:
Genesis 5:24. And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for
God took him.
The fact that Enoch is described as living 365 years, whereas his fa-
ther Jared lived 962 years and his son Methuselah lived 969 years,
seems odd. Is it a coincidence that there are 365 days in a year; that is, in
the complete circuit of the sun across the skies? Is it possible that the
verses given over to Enoch are all that remains of some Babylonian sun
myth?
What is meant by saying that Enoch walked with God and was not is
uncertain, but later traditions made it clear that the usual interpretation
was that he was taken up alive into heaven as a reward for unusual
piety.
It was supposed by the Jews of post-Exilic times that in heaven, Enoch
was able to see the past and future of mankind. Between 200 b.c. and
50 B.C., several books were written purporting to have come from the
pen of Enoch, describing this past and future. They are purely leg-
endary and are a form of "religious fiction" which was fairly common
in the post-Exilic period. (Some of it, as we shall see, found its way
into the Bible.)
58 ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The books attributed to Enoch did not gain entry into the Bible, but
there is a mention of them in the New Testament. In the Epistle of
Jude, the writer says:
Jude 1:14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied
of these . . .
Ararat
If one adds up the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs at the time of
the births of their respective sons, one finds that Noah, the great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Adam was bom 1056 years after
the creation or (accepting Ussher's figures) about 3000 b.c. When he
was six hundred years old, that is, about 2400 b.c, there came the Flood.
This, according to the Bible, was a world-wide deluge, but there is no
record of any such phenomenon, of course. The Egyptian civilization,
for instance, was in a particularly flourishing state at this very time and
was building its pyramids. Nor do the Egyptian records speak of any
floods other than the annual overflow of the Nile, as far as we know.
This is not to say, however, that the Biblical story of the Flood was
not based on some actual, but local, flood in Sumerian history.
Sumeria was a flat land between two large rivers. As is true of any
large river (we have only to think of our own Missouri and Mississippi)
unusual rises will bring about flooding conditions. In a country as flat as
Sumeria, it would not take much of a flood to cover large portions of the
entire region.
A particularly bad flood would live on in the memory of later genera-
tions, and particularly bad floods undoubtedly occurred. In 1929, the
English archaeologist Sir Charles Leonard Woolley reported finding
water-deposited layers as much as ten feet thick in his excavations near
the Euphrates. Such deposits were not found everywhere in the region
and Sumerian culture showed no over-all break. Nevertheless, the evi-
dence exists that somewhere about 3000 b.c. there were indeed drastic
floods of at least a local nature.
With time, as the story is told and retold it is dramatically inevitable
that a flood which spreads out over parts of Sumeria and neighboring
regions with great loss of life will be said to have covered "all the world,"
meaning the entire region. It is further inevitable that later genera-
GENESIS 39
The Flood and the Kingdom of Urartu (Ararat)
tions, with a much broader knowledge of geography, would accept the
phrase "all the world" literally and reduce themselves to needless specu-
lations on the impossible.
(A well-known example of this is the statement frequently met with
among the ancient historians that Alexander the Great "conquered the
world" and then wept for "other worlds to conquer." What was meant
was merely that Alexander had conquered a large part of those sections
of the world which were well known to the Greeks of the time. Actually,
Alexander conquered only 4 or 5 per cent of the earth's land surface
and had plenty of room in which to extend those conquests.)
The people of Sumeria and of Akkadia (lying to the northwest of
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Sumeria) told and retold the tale of one particular flood, which may
have been produced by unusually heavy rains on the region. Some peo-
ple suspect the flood to have been too serious to be accounted for by
rain alone and think there may have been a sudden rise in the water level
of the Persian Gulf, leading to a disastrous influx from the sea.
It has occurred to me recently that a possible explanation for such an
invasion of the sea would be the unlucky strike of a large meteorite in
the nearly landlocked Persian Gulf. The splash that would result would
take the form of a huge wave that might move inland catastrophically,
sweeping away everything in its path.
The invasion of water from the sea ( for whatever reason ) is, indeed,
involved in the Biblical description of the Flood:
Genesis 7:1 1. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life . . . were all
the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven
were opened.
A tidal wave plus rain, in other words.
In 1872, an English archaeologist, George Smith, deciphered ancient
tablets from the remains of a royal Assyrian library and found a descrip-
tion of a flood in which one man saves himself, his family, and samples
of animal life on board a ship. The story is based on still older tales
dating back to Sumerian times.
The hero of this tale is Gilgamesh, king of the Akkadian town of
Erech. He is in search of eternal life and finds Ut-Napishtim, who has
the secret. Ut-Napishtim tell his story. It appears that he was king of a
Sumerian city at the time of the Flood and rode it out in a large ship.
Gilgamesh obtained the secret of eternal life from him, nearly obtained
the necessary conditions, and through misadventure lost it.
The details of this Sumerian flood story are very similar in a number of
points to the story in the Bible. It seems quite likely that the Biblical
story of the Flood is a version of this much earlier tale.
In the Biblical story, Noah's ark floats on the floodwaters for months.
The waters slowly recede—
Genesis 8:4. And the ark rested . . . upon the mountains of Ararat.
Notice that a specific mountain peak is not named. There is no men-
tion of a "Mount Ararat." Instead the Bible clearly states "the moun-
tains of Ararat," implying Ararat to be a region or nation within which
GENESIS
there was a mountain range on which the ark came to rest. The Anchor
Bible translates the phrase as "the Ararat range."
If further Biblical evidence is needed that Ararat is a region and not a
mountain, it can be found in the fifty-first chapter of Jeremiah. The
prophet is reporting God's promise to destroy Babylon, which at that
time was on the point of conquering Judah:
Jeremiah 51:27 . . . call together against her [Babylon] the king-
doms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashchenaz . . .
But where and what was Ararat? Remember that in searching for it
one must consider geography as it was known to those who reduced
Genesis to writing and not necessarily as it was known in the time of the
Sumero-Akkadians.
In Assyrian times there was a kingdom among the mountains in which
the Tigris and Euphrates rose, in what is now eastern Turkey. It centered
about Lake Van (a salt lake about the size and shape of our own Great
Salt Lake) and is sometimes called the "kingdom of Van" in conse-
quence. This kingdom extended from the lake to the Caucasus Moun-
tains, and in Assyrian inscriptions is referred to as the kingdom of
Urartu— of which name Ararat is clearly a version.
The kingdom of Urartu was greatly weakened by Assyrian attack and
by 612 b.c. it had ceased to exist, at a time when Assyria itself was also
being destroyed. In the area in which it had existed, new tribesmen
arrived and a new name (of Persian origin) was given to the land, which
became Armenia.
In those sections of the Bible which were reduced to writing after the
end of Urartu, the term Armenia is used instead. Thus, in the Second
Book of Kings, there is the tale of the assassination of the Assyrian king,
Sennacherib, by his two sons, in 681 b.c, and of their rapid flight there-
after:
2 Kings 19:37. . . . and they escaped into the land of Armenia . . .
What is really meant, of course, is Urartu, since Armenia did not yet
exist, and in the Revised Standard Version, the phrase is indeed changed
to "the land of Ararat."
The tradition that the ark came to rest in Ararat some six hundred
miles northwest of Sumeria again speaks in favor of the tidal-wave theory
of the Flood. Ordinary river flooding would sweep floating objects
4*
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
downstream— southeastward into the Persian Gulf. A huge tidal wave
would sweep them upstream— northwestward toward Ararat.
Despite all evidence, most people insist on thinking of Ararat as the
name of a definite mountain peak and indeed the name Ararat was
eventually applied to one. Mount Ararat is a mountain in the eastern-
most region of Turkey about seventy miles northeast of Lake Van. It has
two peaks, Great Ararat and Little Ararat, the former being the higher,
reaching 16,873 feet (3.2 miles) above sea level. The tradition remains
firmly fixed that Noah's ark came to rest somewhere on Great Ararat
and every once in a while there are expeditions there to find traces of it.
Ham
Once the Flood story is done, the writers of Genesis turn to the task of
giving the names of the descendants of Noah. These, in almost every
case, represent tribes or nations. It was common for ancient tribes to call
themselves after the name of an ancestor (real or mythical). In fact, if a
tribe was known by some name, it was assumed that it was because the
members were descended from an ancestor of that name. (An ancestor
from whom a tribe receives its name is an eponym of that tribe.)
Related tribes could be described as descending from eponyms who
were brothers, and whose father was a still broader eponym. The
Greeks, for instance, called themselves Hellenes and recognized them-
selves to exist as groups of related tribes called Aeolians, Dorians,
Achaeans, and Ionians. They therefore supposed themselves all to
be descended from a man named Hellen. Hellen was described as having
two sons named Aeolus and Dorus, and a third son, Xuthus, who had
twin sons named Ion and Achaeus.
In this spirit, the Book of Genesis describes the immediate descend-
ants of Noah:
Genesis 9:18. And the sons of Noah . . . were Shem, and Ham,
and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
The three sons of Noah represent the three great divisions of the peo-
ples known to the ancient writers of the Bible.
In general, the descendants of Shem are pictured as occupying the
Arabian peninsula and the regions adjoining it to the north, including
the Tigris-Euphrates region, which is the center of interest in the early
44
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
portions of Genesis. Since this includes the Hebrews themselves, Shcm is
given the post of honor and is made the eldest son of Noah. At least, he
is mentioned first.
It is for this reason that the languages of the people dwelling in this
region are referred to as "Semitic." ("Sem" is the Graeco- Latin form of
Shem.) These languages include Hebrew, Assyrian, Aramaean, and, as
the most important living example, Arabic.
The descendants of Ham are described as inhabiting chiefly the cor-
ner of Africa adjacent to Asia. For this reason the original languages of
the peoples of northeastern Africa are called "Hamitic." This includes
Coptic (derived from the ancient Egyptian), the Berber languages of
North Africa, and some of the languages of Ethiopia, such as Amharic.
The descendants of Japheth are described as inhabiting the regions to
the north and east of the Tigris-Euphrates. Sometimes "Japhetic" is used
to describe certain obscure languages in the northern mountainous re-
gions of the Caucasus. Occasionally, it is used more broadly to include
ancient Persian, for example. Since the language of the Persians is
related to those spoken in India and in Europe, this book is (in the
broader sense) being written in a Japhetic language. However, the
importance of Europe is such (modern students of comparative
philology being European in culture) that the broad classification gave
way to the more geographically intelligible "Indo-European."
It is a mistake, though, to suppose that the writers of Genesis were
influenced by language. Modem notions of philology are strictly mod-
em. Rather, the Biblical writers were guided by political connections and
by geographic propinquity. Such connections often did bespeak racial
relatedness so that terms such as Semitic and Hamitic did turn out to
make much sense, linguistically, but this was not true in every case.
A prime example is the case of Canaan. The people inhabiting the
land (Canaanites) at the time the Hebrews moved in spoke a Semitic
language and had a culture related to that of the Tigris-Euphrates
region. By modem terminology, the Canaanites were distinctly Semites.
However, Genesis 9:18 goes out of its way to specify that "Ham is the
father of Canaan." The reason for that is a simple one. Some three
centuries prior to the Hebrew occupation of Canaan, the land had been
conquered by Egyptian armies and for a long time formed part of the
Egyptian Empire. Since Egypt was the most important of the Hamitic
nations it seemed reasonable, according to the standards of the time, to
describe Canaan as a son of Ham.
The end of the ninth chapter of Genesis relates a tradition in which
CENESIS 45
Noah, offended by his second son, Ham, curses him and condemns him
and his son, Canaan, to servitude to his brothers. This reflects the fact
that at the time Genesis was being reduced to writing, the Canaanites
were indeed reduced to servitude to the Israelites, who were descendants
of Shem.
Some modems seem to think that Ham represents the Negro peoples
and that this chapter can be used to justify Negro slavery. This is the
purest piffle. Neither Ham, Canaan, nor any of their named descendants
were viewed as Negroes by the Biblical writers.
Japheth
The Greeks, it seems, must be considered— in Biblical terms— to be
among the descendants of Japheth. The writers of Genesis may even in
this respect have been influenced by Greek traditions, reaching them
dimly from the west.
For instance, Japheth himself has been identified by some with the
Titan Iapetus in the Greek myths. (Since the initial "J" in Hebrew
names is pronounced like a "Y" in Hebrew, as is the initial "I" in
Greek names, the similarity between Japheth and Iapetus is greater
than it appears to be in print.) According to the Greek myths, Iapetus
was the father of Prometheus who, in turn, fathered the human race
by molding them out of clay. For this reason, Iapetus was considered
by the Greeks to be the ancestor of mankind; and, to the Hebrews,
Japheth was the ancestor of that portion of mankind to which the
Greeks belonged.
The sons and grandsons of Japheth are listed in the tenth chapter
of Genesis:
Genesis 10:2. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai,
and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiros.
Genesis 10:3. And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath,
and Togarmah.
Genesis 10:4. And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim,
and Dodanim.
We must remember that such genealogies reflect the geographic and
political situation of the Assyrian period, when the various parts of
Genesis were reduced to writing.
Of the sons of Japheth, Gomer seems to be identical with the
4 6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
people who, in Assyrian inscriptions, were the "Gimirrai" and these in
turn were the people known in Latin spelling as the Cimmerians. In
earlier times they lived north of the Black Sea but in the seventh
century B.C., pushed on by new bands of barbarians in the rear, they
invaded Asia Minor and met the Assyrians there in earth-shaking battles.
They were eventually defeated, to be sure, but Assyria was badly
wounded in the process. The Cimmerians would certainly be in prom-
inent view at the time the tenth chapter was being written and their
eponym, Gomer, would, very reasonably, be viewed as the first-born of
Japheth.
As for Magog, that may represent "the land of Gog" where Gog
is the ruler known to us from the Greek historians as Gyges. He
was king of the Lydians, a people in western Asia Minor, and was
one of the important adversaries of the invading Cimmerians. In fact,
he died in battle against them about 652 b.c.
Madai is supposed to refer to the Medes, who inhabited the territory
east of Assyria, and who were soon to be among the final conquerors
of Assyria. Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras are all thought to represent
minor tribes of Asia Minor. The name Tiras bears some similarities
to the Greek "Tyrsenoi," which was applied to a people who, it was
thought, dwelt originally in Asia Minor but migrated to Italy. If so,
Tiras could represent the Etruscans.
The most interesting of the sons of Japheth is Javan. This name
is almost certainly identical with an archaic form of the Greek "Ion,"
who was the eponym of the Ionian Greeks. The Ionians had, about
1000 b.c, migrated eastward to occupy the islands of the Aegean Sea
and the coasts of Asia Minor. Of the various Greek tribes they were
the nearest to Canaan and would be best known to the Israelites
of Assyrian times. Their tribal name would be naturally applied to the
Greeks generally.
Of Gomer's sons, Ashkenaz may be identical with the name "Ash-
guza" found among Assyrian inscriptions. This seems to refer to the
peoples known to the Greeks, and therefore to ourselves, as the Scyth-
ians. The Scythians were nomadic tribes who entered Europe from
somewhere in central Asia some time before 1000 b.c. It was their
pressure southward against the Cimmerians that drove the Cimmerians
into Asia Minor. The Scythians took their place in the steppelands
north of the Black Sea, and from that standpoint, Ashkenaz (Scythia)
might well be considered the eldest son of Gomer (Cimmeria).
GENESIS 47
For some reason, the later Jews viewed Ashkenaz as the ancestor
of the Teutonic people. For this reason German-speaking Jews were
called "Ashkenazim" as contrasted with the Spanish-speaking "Sephar-
dim."
It would be expected that the sons of Javan listed in Genesis 10:4
would refer to those Greek-speaking regions closest to Israel. Elishah
seems to be similar to the "Alashiyah" found in Assyrian documents
and this refers to the island of Cyprus. This had already been colonized
by Greeks in Assyrian times, and it was the closest of all Greek-
speaking lands to Canaan, being only two hundred miles to the north-
east.
Indeed, Cyprus is mentioned twice, for Kittim surely represents Kition
(Citium in Latin), a city on the southern coast of the island, the name
of which was often used for the entire island.
Dodanim is widely thought to be a misprint for Rodanim; in fact,
it is given as Rodanim in some early copies of the Bible. If the
name is Rodanim then it is tempting to equate it with the island of
Rhodes, two hundred miles west of Cyprus.
Tarshish, on the basis of references later in the Bible, is usually
taken to represent a city in Spain. However, it occurs to me that
in this one instance, it might represent Tarsus, an important Greek
town, a hundred miles north of Cyprus, on the southern coast of
Asia Minor. It was an important city in Assyrian times and might
represent the Greeks of Asia Minor generally.
Cush
The most notable confusion in this tenth chapter, describing the
nations of the Near East, occurs in connection with Cush, which I
said earlier (see page 29) could be used to represent the Ethiopians,
south of Egypt, and also the Kossaeans, east of the Tigris.
Genesis 10:6. And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mtznrim, and Phut,
and Canaan.
Genesis 10:7. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah . . .
In Genesis 10:6, Cush clearly means the Ethiopians, south of Egypt,
who, indeed, speak a Hamitic tongue. Phut (better, "Put," as given
in the Revised Standard Version) is usually thought to represent the
4 8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
peoples west of Egypt whom the Greeks called Libyans. These also
spoke a Hamitic language.
Mizraim is the Hebrew word for "Egypt," so he is the eponym
of that nation. Wherever else it occurs in the Bible, Mizraim is trans-
lated into "Egypt" (a term of Greek origin). If such translations
were done here, the verse might read: "And the sons of Ham; Ethiopia,
and Egypt, and Libya, and Canaan," which would accurately reflect
the area dominated by Egypt in the days of her greatness.
In the very next verse, however, Cush is described as the father of
Seba, Havilah, and a series of other sons, all of whom are clearly
eponyms of Arabian tribes. This Cush must be the one representing
the Kossaeans, and not the Hamitic Cush of Ethiopia.
Nimrod
This confusion of dishes leads to a section of obviously Semitic
ethnology being included under Ham:
Genesis 10:8. And [the Semitic] Cush begat Nimrod: he began
to be a mighty one in the earth.
Genesis 10:9. He was a mighty hunter . . .
Genesis 10:10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and
Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Genesis 10:11. Our of that land went forth Asshur, and builded
Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
Genesis 10:12. And Resen between Nineveh and Calah . . .
Nimrod is the only name in Chapter 10 of Genesis who is clearly
an individual and not an eponym. Who, then, is Nimrod? Can he
be identified at all and equated with any historic personage? Or is he
lost forever in the primeval mists?
There is no question but that whoever he was, he is described
as ruling over the Tigris-Euphrates region, for that is where all the
cities named are known (where they are known at all) to have been
located. Furthermore the "land of Shinar" is accepted as being the
Biblical term used for what we would call "Sumeria."
Genesis 10:10 appears, then, to make Nimrod an important king
of the Tigris-Euphrates region, with his power based on the four cities
GENESIS 49
The Empire of Nimrod
of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh. The location of Calneh is unknown
and there is general agreement now that its inclusion is an error and
that the word is not the name of a city but is Hebrew for "all of
them." The verse is made to read in the Revised Standard Version:
"The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of
them in the land of Shinar."
The three cities that remain are no mystery. Erech corresponds to
the city known as "Uruk" in the ancient inscriptions of the region.
The city was first excavated in the 1850's and showed every sign of
having once been an extensive metropolis, with large temples and a
library. It dates back to 3600 b.c. at least. It was located on the
Euphrates River about forty miles from its ancient mouth. The Eu-
phrates River has since changed its course somewhat and the ruins
of Erech are now several miles east of the present course of the river.
5°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The mythical Gflgamesh (see page 40) was king of this city and
this city was also ruled by a historical conqueror. This was Lugal-
Zaggisi, king of Erech, who ruled shortly after 2300 b.c. He conquered
other Sumerian city-states and was the first individual we know of to
govern a sizable empire in the Tigris-Euphrates. His realm may even
have reached the Mediterranean. His triumph was short-lived, however,
thanks to another conqueror, associated with Accad, the second of the
cities mentioned in Genesis 10:10.
Accad, or Akkad, is, in the ancient inscriptions, Agade. Its exact
site is unknown but it was probably also on the Euphrates, about
140 miles upstream from Erech. The city gave its name to the upper
portion of the Tigris-Euphrates region, which became known as Akkad.
The Akkadians who inhabited these upstream regions were not iden-
tical with the Sumerians, although they adopted the Sumerian culture.
The Akkadians spoke a Semitic language, for instance, while the Su-
merian language was non-Semitic (and, indeed, had no known linguistic
affiliations).
The Akkadians were at first under Sumerian domination but about
2280 B.C., a man named Sharrukin ("righteous king" in Akkadian) came
to power and established his capital in the city of Agade. That king
has become Sargon of Agade to us. About 2264 b.c, he defeated
Lugal-Zaggisi and founded an Akkadian Empire. Sargon's grandson,
Naram-Sin, extended the empire even farther and about 2180 b.c.
it was at its height.
About 2150 b.c, however, soon after Naram-Sin's death, barbarians
from the eastern mountains invaded and conquered the Tigris-Euphrates
region and brought the Akkadian Empire to an end. After a century
of barbarian domination, the Sumerians won their freedom and, about
2000 B.C., experienced a last period of power. After that, the remaining
city mentioned in Genesis 10:10 comes in.
The town of Babel was located on the Euphrates River about 40
miles downstream from Agade. It existed as a small and unremarkable
place for over a thousand years while the Sumerian city-states still further
downstream flourished and the Akkadian Empire rose and fell.
While the Sumerians were in their final period of glory, however,
another group of peoples from the middle Euphrates, the Amorites,
seized control of Babel about 1900 b.c, and made it the capital of an
expanding empire.
Under the sixth king of the Amorite dynasty, Hammurabi, who
reigned about 1700 b.c, Babel became a world metropolis and remained
GENESIS 51
so for two thousand yean, despite the fact that it was frequently
conquered and ravished. Indeed, it was the glamor city of the East
throughout Old Testament times and is best known to us by the
Greek version of its name— Babylon. The entire Tigris-Euphrates region
is commonly known as Babylonia after this city.
Under Amorite domination, the Sumerians finally broke and declined
rapidly, losing their identity, though their culture remained to be in-
herited and elaborated by conqueror after conqueror. The language
died out as a living vehicle for communication but remained as part
of religious liturgy (like Latin in the modem Catholic Church) for
some 1500 years, not dying out completely till 300 b.c.
The Amorites did not long survive the glories of Hammurabi. About
1670 b.c. the Kassites or Kossaeans invaded Babylonia from the East
and established a "dark age" that lasted for nearly five hundred years.
With southern Babylonia thus in eclipse, the cities of the far northern
reaches of the river valley had their chance to gain prominence. Whereas
Genesis 10:10 concerns itself with southern Babylonia, verse io:u turns
to the north.
The King James Version begins the verse by saving "Out of that
land went forth Asshur." This is now generally accepted as a mis-
translation of the Hebrew. The Revised Standard Version has the verse
begin: "Out of that land he [Nimrod] went forth into Asshur."
Asshur is the region along the upper courses of the Tigris River,
in what is now northern Iraq. The town of Asshur (or Ashur), which
gave its name to the region, was located on the Tigris River about
230 miles north of Babylon and was founded (by Sumerian colonists,
perhaps) as early as 2700 b.c. Asshur is far better known by the Greek
version of its name— Assyria.
Assyria was part of the Akkadian Empire and then later part of
the Amorite Empire. The Assyrian inhabitants of that region, however,
maintained their identity and had periods of great prosperity. The
capital of the region was moved from Ashur to cities further upstream
on the Tigris, first to Calah, then finally to Nineveh. (The site of
the town of Resen, described in verse 10:12 as lying between these
two cities, is not known, but the word, like "Calneh," may not signify
a town at all.)
The turning point in Assyrian history may have come during the
reign of Shalmaneser I, about 1250 b.c. He is reputed to have built
Calah and he may have witnessed the introduction into Assyria of the
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
art of smelting iron from Asia Minor, where it seems to have been
developed.
The use of iron weapons gives an army a great advantage over
one that is armed only with bronze weapons. Iron can be made harder
than bronze and iron edges are sharper and less easily blunted. Shal-
maneser's son, Tukulti-Ninurta I, used his iron-armed warriors to make
himself the first of Assyria's conquering monarchs.
Despite occasional setbacks, Assyria grew stronger and stronger, dis-
placed the Kassites, and established their rule over all of Babylonia,
then spread far beyond. By the time the traditions of Genesis were
being reduced to writing, Assyria was the most powerful nation the
world had yet seen.
It would appear, then, that the verses 10:8-12 are a brief resume
of 2500 years of the history of the Tigris-Euphrates region, from the
period of the Sumerian city-states, through the Akkadian Empire, the
Amorite Empire, and, finally, the Assyrian Empire.
And where in this long history are we to find Nimrod?
The Biblical passage concerning him seems to telescope the deeds
of Lugal-Zaggisi, Sargon of Agade, Hammurabi, and Shalmaneser I (and
perhaps even Gilgamesh) and to make his single person reflect the
greatness of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, and Assyrians.
And yet to the writers of Genesis, the Assyrians were the latest and
greatest of the empires of the Tigris-Euphrates and their glory tended
to dim the memory of what had gone before. To the first conquering
king of Assyria might then go the credit not only for establishing
Assyrian might, but of performing all the deeds of the preceding
kingdoms as well. (It is as though a child receiving some garbled
notice of America's early history but understanding full well that George
Washington was the first President of the United States would then
write: "George Washington crossed the Atlantic Ocean in the May-
flower, discovered America, conquered Mexico, built Washington, D.C.,
and became first President of the United States.")
The first Assyrian conqueror of note was, as I have said, Tukulti-
Ninurta I. It seems very likely that he served as the original inspiration
for the Greek legend of Ninus. ("Ninurta" with a few letters dropped
and the Greek final -s, almost invariably used in their own names,
becomes "Ninus.") In the Greek legend, Ninus singlehandedly founds
Nineveh, conquers all of Babylonia and Armenia (Urartu), and the
nomadic regions to the east as well, founding the Assyrian Empire.
GENESIS
53
It seems quite possible that, in analogous fashion, "Ninurta" became
"Nimrod" to the editors of Genesis. Indeed, the short picture of
Nimrod in these few Biblical verses seems to point to an Assyrian
monarch in particular. Assyrian art was powerful and cruel and one
of the favorite objects of portrayal was that of the Assyrian kings in
pursuit of big game. Hunting was undoubtedly a favorite and well-
publicized sport of those monarchs and this is undoubtedly the reason
for describing Nimrod as "a mighty hunter."
Then, too, the Assyrians succeeded the Kassites (Cush) as the
dominant power in Babylonia, which makes it natural to have Nimrod
described as the son of Cush.
Aram
With Nimrod out of the way, the writers of Genesis go on to
complete the genealogy of Ham, by giving the descendants of Ham's
sons, Mizraim [Egypt] and Canaan. Some of these have no particular
interest and others will be more conveniently dealt with later.
Genesis then goes on to discuss the line of Shem:
Genesis 10:22. The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Ar-
phaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
• ■ • ■
Genesis 10:24. Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.
The first two sons of Shem are Elam and Asshur, the eponyms
of the Elamites and the Assyrians, which at the time that Genesis
was reduced to writing were the most powerful nations of the "Semitic"
world. I put "Semitic" in quotes because actually Elam was not Semitic
in the modem sense; its language being of uncertain affiliation, and
certainly not Semitic. However, its propinquity to Semitic Babylonia
and Assyria and its long connection with both (if only through peren-
nial war) fulfilled the Biblical criterion of the word. Almost to the
very end of the Assyrian period, Elam was the great unconquered
adversary of Assyria, so that it deserved being listed as an independent
son of Shem. And since it was clearly the more ancient it deserved
being listed as the eldest.
The other three sons of Shem might conceivably represent other
areas at the borders of the Assyrian Empire, still unconquered in the
eighth century b.c.
54
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Aram is clearly the eponym of the Aramaean tribes. These emerged
from northern Arabia about the twelfth century B.C., and infiltrated
the fertile regions round about. Aramaean raids helped weaken the
Assyrian Empire after its first round of conquests under Tukulti-Ninurta
I, and Tiglath-Pileser I, the latter of whom died about 1100 b.c.
For two centuries thereafter, the Assyrian Empire remained almost in a
state of suspended animation. Western Asia was given a respite and
smaller states were allowed to establish themselves.
Even when the Assyrian Empire had recovered and, after 900 b.c,
began expanding again, an independent Aramaean kingdom nevertheless
maintained itself north of Canaan until 732 b.c. To the writers of
Genesis, then, it deserved notice as an independent son of Shem.
Lud is much more controversial. The similarity of sound gives rise
to the thought that Lud is the eponym of Lydia, already mentioned
in connection with Magog (see page 46). Lydia, in western Asia
Minor, maintained its independence against Assyria although it paid
tribute at times.
That leaves the two small kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which,
at the time that Genesis was reduced to writing, also maintained a
precarious independence. Surely, since it was in Israel and Judah that
the two chief strands of Genesis were compiled, these would be noticed
as independent sons of Shem.
In a way they were. Arphaxad (better, "Arpachsad," as the Revised
Standard Version has it) is a complete puzzle linguistically and does
not even seem to be a Semitic name. However, Genesis 10:24 states
that Arphaxad was the grandfather of Eber and Eber is the eponym
of the Hebrew people, which would include the inhabitants of both
Israel and Judah (as well as certain other related peoples).
Babel
With the genealogies taken care of, the Book of Genesis goes on
to relate one last tale centered about Babylonia.
While the descendants of Noah were still a relatively small group,
all speaking a single language, they came to Shinar (Sumeria) and
decided to build a huge tower there, with which to "reach unto Heaven."
However, God defeated their purpose by giving each man a different
language, making it impossible for them to understand each other.
CENESIS
55
Unable to continue their complex building activities, they had to leave
off, and this tale is used to explain the name of the city in which the
tower was built:
Genesis 11:9. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because
the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth . . .
In other words, the writers of Genesis derived "Babel" from the
Hebrew word balal, meaning "mixed," "confused," or "confounded."
This derivation is, however, a false one, for in the Babylonian language,
the name of the city is "Bab-ilu," meaning "gate of God." From this is
derived the Hebrew "Babel" and the Greek "Babylon."
There was, as it happens, a tower in Babel; indeed, there were
towers in most Sumerian and Babylonian cities. The temples to the
gods in these cities took the form of stepped pyramids which were
ascended by inclined planes about the outside. These were called
ziggurats.
A large ziggurat in Babylon was begun by a Sumerian king and
was left unfinished perhaps as a result of the disorders involved in
the southward march of Sargon of Agade. For many centuries, the
ziggurat remained incomplete and perhaps gained fame because of its
shortcoming (as does the Leaning Tower of Pisa or Schubert's Un-
finished Symphony). It served as the model, one might assume, for the
Biblical tale of the unfinished tower in Babel.
However, in the sixth century B.C., Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon,
finished the largest ziggurat ever built. It was formed in seven diminish-
ing stages (one for each of the planets). The bottommost stage was
300 feet by 300 feet and the whole structure reared 325 feet into
the air.
This would scarcely make a respectable skyscraper now, and it was
much smaller than the tremendous pyramids built by the Egyptians.
It was, however, the largest structure in southwestern Asia and, more
remarkable still, it was what is now so familiar to us as the "tower of
Babel"— finished at last.
Ur of the Chaldees
The eleventh chapter of Genesis concludes with a quick listing of
the descendants of Shem and Arphaxad. Again the age of each post-
56
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
diluvian patriarch is given at the time of the birth of the successor.
The years he lived after this birth are also given. The total age given
for these patriarchs gradually decreases. The age of Shem at the time
of his death is given as 602 years (itself a fall-off from Methuselah's
969), but Terah, eight generations later, lives only 205 years, and his
immediate descendants have lifetimes of less than 200 years.
If we add up the ages, it would seem that Abram, the son of
Terah, was bom 292 years after the Flood, or, roughly, 2100 b.c There
is no way of checking this from any source outside the Bible, but it
would better fit the dates of the later events of the Bible if his birth
were placed a bit later in history— perhaps soon after 2000 b.c.
It is impossible, now, to tell whether Abram and his immediate
descendants represent actual individuals or, as in the case of Nimrod,
a telescoping of several. If we take the Biblical story at its face value,
however, he is an individual and a well-depicted individual, too. Genesis
makes him sound historical whether he is or not.
Abram (whose name was later altered to the now better-known
Abraham) is the first of the patriarchs from whom the later Jews traced
their descent not only physically but spiritually. The importance of
Abraham over those that came before him, if we follow the Biblical
story, was that he was the first to travel to Canaan and, according to
legends which do not appear in the Bible, that he publicly abandoned
the worship of idols and became a staunch monotheist. (The legends
explain that his father, Terah, was a manufacturer of idols and that
Abram broke them in anger.)
The tale of Abram begins in the Tigris-Euphrates region which has
been the focus of the first eleven chapters of the Bible:
Genesis 11:27. • • • Terafc begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and
Haran begat Lot.
Genesis 11 :28. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land
of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
Ur, therefore, can be taken as the home of Abram's family, and the
birthplace of Abram himself.
Ur was a Sumerian city, founded no later than 3500 b.c. and possibly
much earlier. It was located on the right bank of the Euphrates River
about 140 miles southeast of Babylon and right at what was then
the coastline of the Persian Gulf. It was an important city in Sumerian
days, a center of worship of the moon-god, Sin, possessor of an impres-
58
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
sive ziggurat, and probably enriched by an important seagoing com-
merce, situated as it was on the seacoast.
About 2500 b.c, Ur experienced a period of considerable power
under its "first dynasty." This, however, came to an end after two
and a half centuries, when Ur fell under the triumphant armies of
Lugal-Zaggisi and, later, Sargon of Agade.
The inhabitants and historians of Ur must have viewed these con-
querors in a harshly unfavorable light. If it is true that Nimrod rep-
resents a dim memory of Lugal-Zaggisi and Sargon, among others, then
it is interesting that in Jewish legend Nimrod is represented as king
of Babylonia at the time of Abram's birth and is described as having
sought, unsuccessfully, to kill Abram.
After the fall of the Akkadian Empire, Ur entered another period
of greatness and commercial prosperity under its "third dynasty." This
final period of Sumerian power lay between 2050 b.c. and 1950 b.c.
and it was during that period that Abram was born.
Ur continued to exist throughout Old Testament times and it is
mentioned in documents as late as 324 b.c. However, by the time
Genesis was being reduced to writing, Ur was nothing but a decayed
and obscure village. The writers of Genesis, in mentioning a town
which, thanks to the birth of Abram there, was of surpassing interest
to their readers, felt called upon to identify it somewhat. They therefore
called it "Ur kasdim," which is translated as "Ur of the Chaldees"
or, better, "Ur of the Chaldeans," as in the Revised Standard Version.
The Chaldeans were an Arabian tribe who pressed into Babylonia
from the south, on the heels of the Aramaeans (see page 54), about
1150 b.c. It was not until nearly a thousand years after Abraham's
time, then, that Ur really became part of the Chaldean territory.
Nevertheless, during the Assyrian period, the Chaldeans were the most
important tribal component of the Babylonian population, and "Ur
of the Chaldees" was the most economical way of identifying the town,
regardless of the anachronism of the phrase.
Haran
The period of Ur's prosperity was coming to an end during Abram's
youth, however. The silting-up of the mouths of the Tigris and Euphra-
tes meant that Ur could maintain its maritime prosperity only by con-
GENESIS
59
stant labors. The continuing struggles among the Sumerian cities, how-
ever, sapped its energies and helped ruin Ur as a seaport. Furthermore,
the rising might of the Amorite rulers of Babylon was gradually bringing
all the Sumerian city-states to a common end.
It is not surprising, then, that Abram's family could see little future
in remaining in Ur and left Sumeria altogether.
Genesis 11:31. . . . they went forth . . . from Ur of the Chaldees
. . . and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
In doing this, the family was following the normal trade routes
from Sumeria to the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean lies five hun-
dred miles due west of Ur, but if one were to travel due west one
would have to cross the northern reaches of the Arabian desert, and
that would be impractical. Instead, one would follow the rivers to
the northwest and then turn south, marking out a great crescent
that would carry one over a distance of over a thousand miles. The
greater distance is made up for by the fact that one travels over
fertile, settled territory and can rely on obtaining food and supplies
for men and animals over the route. Indeed, the regions traversed
by Abram make up what is familiarly termed "the Fertile Crescent."
Abram and his family stopped at Haran, at the northern peak of
the crescent, and remained there for several years. Haran is located
on the eastern bank of the Balikh River, which flows south into the
upper Euphrates, sixty miles away. Haran is about 170 miles east of
the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean and is located in what
is now southeastern Turkey, just north of the Syrian border.
It was, in Abram's time, an important commercial center and therefore
a good place to settle down, at least for a while, and catch one's
breath. Like Ur, it was a center of the worship of the moon-god,
Sin.
The Anchor Bible points out certain difficulties in accepting the
phrase "Ur of the Chaldees" and wonders if it might not possibly
be better given as "land of the Chaldees." In that case, Haran itself
might be the place of birth of Abram's family, rather than Ur, and
the two might have been confused through the common moon-worship.
Birth in Haran rather than Ur would make Abram an Aramaean
(or at least the native of a region that later became Aramaean) rather
than a Sumerian. This would square with the description in the Book
of Deuteronomy of the ancestor of the Israelites, presumably Abraham.
6o
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In the Revised Standard Version, this reads: "A wandering Aramaean
was my father."
It might seem at first glance that it is significant that Abram's
younger brother, who had died early, was named Haran. It cannot
be taken, however, that he could possibly have been named for the
city, for the two names are alike only in English. In Hebrew, the
name of the city does not really begin with the sound represented by
out "H" but by that represented by the German "Ch."
But it is not likely that this view will win out. The birth of Abram
at Ur is not only firmly embedded in tradition, but has its attractive
features as well.
Ur is one of those places in which excavation reveals thicknesses
of silt resulting from a severe flood. It may be that emigrants from
Ur, with Abram prominent among them, brought tales of this flood
to Canaan, where it entered the traditional story of early man and
remained there. Other Sumerian legends, such as that of the garden
of Eden, of Cain and Abel, of the tower of Babel, may also have
arrived with them.
The city of Haran enters into history as more than merely a place
of which one might say "Abram slept here." It is the site of three
dramatic battles. It was an important bastion of the Assyrian Empire
and when that empire fell, it was at Haran that its forces made their
last stand— and were destroyed. To the Romans, Haran was known
as Carrhae. There, in 53 b.c, a Roman army under Crassus was
defeated by the Parthians, a crucial check to the expanding empire.
In 296 a.d., the Roman Emperor Galerius was defeated there by the
Persians in another dramatic battle.
Canaan
Abram's father, Terah, died in Haran, and it was time for Abram
to move on.
Genesis 12:5. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's
son . . . and into the land of Canaan they came.
Canaan is the name of that section of the Mediterranean coast
of Asia that lies south of Asia Minor. The use of the name in that
sense is found in Egyptian inscriptions dating back to 1800 b.c.
GENESIS 6l
Canaan was the center of a late Stone Age civilization with distinct
towns by 4000 b.c. By 3200 B.C., metalworking had been introduced
and it entered the Bronze Age.
People speaking a Semitic language entered Canaan as early as
3000 b.c. and for the next thousand years, they benefited from contact
with the expanding culture of the Tigris-Euphrates region and by
renewed immigration. By the time of Abram's arrival, then, Canaan
already had a long history of civilization and was occupied by a mixture
of peoples, lumped together in the Bible as the "Canaanites."
Despite the Bible's characterization of Canaan as a son of Ham
(see page 44) because of Egyptian domination of the land, most
Canaanites not only spoke a Semitic language, they actually spoke
Hebrew. The Israelites who eventually conquered the land spoke or
adopted the language of the people they overcame but— and this is the
essence of Israel's importance in history— made and, in the end, held
to their own values in religion.
Egypt
While Abraham had gone on a thousand-mile journey, he had, in
a sense, never left home, for the culture that had originated in Sumeria
filled all the Fertile Crescent in his day. Canaan, however, represented
the western limit of that culture. When Abram traveled southwestward
out of Canaan, he emerged into a new world altogether.
Genesis 12:10. And there was a famine in the land [Canaan]:
and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there . . .
This was natural enough, for Egypt depended upon the annual flood-
ing of the Nile for its fertility and this rarely failed. Consequently
the famines that plagued semi-arid lands whenever the rainfall dipped
below normal usually left Egypt untouched.
Egypt shares with Sumeria the honor of being the earliest home
of human civilization. By 3000 B.C., civilization was well advanced,
writing had been developed (borrowed from Sumeria, most likely),
art and literature flourished.
Egypt benefited by its location. In all directions it was isolated, by
desert or by sea and it could develop its own way without interference.
Whereas western Asia saw a succession of different cities or tribes rise
62
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Egyptian Kingdom
to dominance and fall to ruin, with prosperity and disaster alternating,
Egyptian history was comparatively calm.
On the other hand, Egypt suffered in its earliest age from that same
geography. Egypt is a long, thin nation, a veritable thread of a country.
Only the immediate banks of the Nile receive the life-giving water
of the flood and the Egyptians found themselves cultivating some 550
miles of riverside with an average width of just about twelve miles.
This linearity and lack of regional compactness meant that the country
naturally broke itself into isolated fragments.
Toward the end of the fourth millennium B.C. these had coalesced
into two portions. In the north, where the Nile approached the
Mediterranean, it built up a delta (as the Tigris and Euphrates did)
and into this delta the Nile poured, breaking up into a series of
sluggish streams that fertilized an area in the rough shape of an
equilateral triangle about one hundred miles on each side. (The
Greek letter "delta" in its capital form is an equilateral triangle and
it is that which gave the Nile delta, and, eventually, all river deltas
whatever their shape, its name.) This Nile delta made up "Lower
Egypt."
South of the delta is the river itself with its thin strip of fertile land
along either bank. That is "Upper Egypt."
About 3100 B.C., a ruler of upper Egypt named Narmer, but better
known by the Creek version of his name, Menes, made himself king
GENESIS 63
over both Egypts and established his capital at Memphis, just about
fifteen miles south of the beginning of the delta. The site of the
capital was probably selected deliberately because it was nearly at the
point of junction of the two earlier kingdoms, so that neither appeared
to be dominating.
Menes was the first king of the 1st dynasty (where a dynasty signifies
a ruling family with members following each other in, usually, unbroken
succession) of united Egypt. Eventually, thirty dynasties were recorded
as ruling Egypt, though some of the later ones represented foreign
conquerors.
Egypt's first period of high prosperity is referred to as the "Old King-
dom." It endured during the 3rd to the 6th dynasties inclusive, from
2664 B.C. to 2181 b.c, a period of nearly five hundred years that
neatly brackets the traditional date of the Flood. The first ruler of
the 3rd dynasty was Zoser and, according to tradition, it was in his
reign that the first pyramid was built.
The pyramids were large stone structures that were intended as vast
tombs for the ruler. The Egyptian religion was strongly death-centered
and it was felt that the route to eternal life lay in the physical
preservation of the body. A vastly complicated system of embalming
was developed and the production of mummies (some of which have
survived many centuries into our own time) was carried through with
care. The mummy of the ruler was buried with vast riches (to serve
him in the next world) and care had to be taken to prevent sacrilegious
thieves from rifling the tombs. The pyramids were attempts to prevent
such thievery by sheer bulk and strength, together with hidden exits
and cunningly contrived passages. These failed, almost entirely, although
in 1922, the British archaeologists, the Earl of Carnarvon and Howard
Carter, discovered the unrifled tomb of Tutankhamen, a ruler who died
in 1343 B.C., and created a sensation.
The pyramid madness reached its peak in the 4th dynasty with Khufu,
the second king of that dynasty (better known by the Greek version
of his name, Cheops). He ruled from 2590 B.C. to 2568 B.C., just a
trifle earlier than the first dynasty of Ur. He constructed what is
now known as the "Great Pyramid," a monster of an edifice built
from a square base 756 feet on each side and rising to a point 481V2
feet above the level of the base. It is built out of huge granite blocks
averaging 2V2 tons in weight, and 2,300,000 such blocks went into the
structure. According to Herodotus, it took 100,000 men thirty years
to build the structure. Maybe that's not too exaggerated. Relative to
6 4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the technology of the time, the Great Pyramid is the most ambitious
project of man with the possible exception of the Great Wall of China;
and it is certainly the most useless, without exception.
After the end of the 6th dynasty, a period of virtual snarchy followed.
Egypt fell apart into separate segments as a result of the slow decline
of central authority during the later years of the Old Kingdom and
the steady rise to power of the feudal lords of the various towns
and regions. During a century and a quarter five different dynasties
ruled, overlapping perhaps. It was only Egypt's isolation that allowed
it the luxury of this anarchy; otherwise it would certainly have fallen
prey to some outside enemy.
It was not until 2052 b.c. that central authority under the 11th dy-
nasty began to make itself felt again. By 1991 b.c. (about the time of
Abram's birth), Amenemhct I, first king of the 12th dynasty, came
to the throne. This initiated the "Middle Kingdom," a second period
of high civilization and culture. It was then that Abram entered.
Pharaoh
In Egypt, Abram eventually found himself in an uncomfortable
position when the beauty of his wife attracted unwelcome attention:
Genesis 12:15. The princes ... of Pharaoh saw her . . . and the
woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
The name "Pharaoh," uniformly used as a title of respect for the
Egyptian ruler, comes from the Egyptian pero, meaning "great house";
that is, the ruler's palace. (One might similarly speak obliquely of
"the White House" when one means the American President, or of the
"Kremlin" when one means the Soviet ruling body.)
The difficulty of this respectful practice is that it makes it quite
impossible to tell which Pharaoh is being referred to very often. If
one asks which Pharaoh it was that tried to add Abram's wife to
his harem, we can only answer that while we might guess, we can
never know.
I would like to suggest that it was Sesostris I, the second king
of the 12th dynasty, who ruled from 1971 b.c. to 1928 b.c. He extended
Egypt's power to the south and west and under him Egypt experienced
a prosperity that might have seemed very attractive to a "wandering
Aramaean."
GENESIS 65
In fact, Abram did well in Egypt. If, eventually, he got into trouble
with Pharaoh and received back his wife only after considerable un-
pleasantness, and if he decided it was the better part of valor to return
to Canaan, he at least did so as a rich man.
Jordan River
On his return to Canaan, Abram found his herds so multiplied
that there was insufficient forage for both them and the herds of
his nephew, Lot. It seemed reasonable to separate and generously, he
allowed Lot Erst choice of territory.
Genesis 13:10. And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the
plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the
Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the
Lord, like the land of Egypt . . .
Genesis 13:11. Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan . . .
Genesis 13:12. . . . and pitched his tent toward Sodom.
Canaan is largely a semi-arid country and the one place where water
was (and is) unfailingly available was in the valley of the Jordan
River. The fertility is described in this verse as being like that of
the land of the two great river civilizations: Sumeria ("the garden of
the Lord," that is, Eden) and Egypt.
For its size, the Jordan River is certainly the most famous river
in the world, thanks entirely to its Biblical associations. It rises from
the mountains that run along the line where the modern states of
Lebanon, Syria, and Israel meet, and flows directly south about 135
miles, flowing into an inland sea without an outlet. The waters of
the Jordan never reach the ocean. The river wind's and meanders so,
however, that its full length if straightened out would be 250 miles.
In one respect, the Jordan River is quite unusual. Its level descends
rapidly and, in its relatively short length, that level drops from source
to mouth about three thousand feet, or well over half a mile. In
fact, it is sometimes suggested that the name of the river is derived
from this fact and from a Hebrew word meaning "to go down." This,
however, may be mere coincidence and the name may arise from
pre-Semitic sources.
The result of this descent is that the water level in the river, over
GENESIS 67
the lower two thirds of its course, is actually below sea level. As far
as is known, this is true of no other river in the world.
The reason for this is that the Jordan River occupies the northern
tip of the Great Rift Valley, a gigantic downfaulted block in the earth's
crust which continues southward past the mouth of the Jordan River,
into the long, narrow Red Sea (which fills that section of the rift),
and in a large arc through eastern Africa. The deep and narrow lakes:
Rudolf, Albert, Tanganyika, and Nyasa, fill sections of the African
portion of the rift. All told, the Great Rift Valley is some four
thousand miles long.
Despite Lot's opinion, the Jordan is not a very attractive river. It
is not navigable and it is steaming hot in the summer, with temperatures
not uncommonly reaching 110 0 in the shade. The general unattractive-
ness of the Jordan valley is recognized in Genesis 13:10, which carefully
explains that Lot's estimate was before the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah (the story of which is told later in Chapter 19).
In modern times, the Jordan has gained new kinds of importance.
First, it is a national boundary. After World War I, what had once been
Canaan was freed from Turkish control and was set up as a separate
area, Palestine, under British control. The Jordan River served as part
of its eastern boundary and to the east was another region, Trans-Jordan,
("beyond the Jordan") also under British control.
Trans-Jordan became an independent kingdom in 1946. Then in
1948, a portion of Palestine was set up as an independent Jewish
state, which adopted the name of Israel. There was war at once between
Israel and the surrounding Arab states. Trans-Jordan occupied and
annexed a portion of the land to the west of the Jordan River and
changed its own name to Jordan. (That portion of Jordan west of
the river was occupied by Israel after the Six-day War of 1967.)
Hebron
After Lot left, Abraham contented himself with the less fertile and
apparently less desirable region southwest of the Jordan.
Genesis 13:18. Then Abram removed his tent, and came and
dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron . . .
Actually, "plain of Mamre" is a mistranslation and, in the Revised
Standard Version, it is "oaks of Mamre" with a footnote to the effect
68
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
that it might be "terebinths of Mamre." In cither case, the reference
is, apparently, to a sacred grove of trees located (according to tradition)
about two miles north of Hebron.
Hebron itself is twenty miles south of Jerusalem and is one of the
oldest towns in Canaan. Although it is called Hebron here, that being
its name at the time Genesis was placed in final form, it was ap-
parently called Kirjath-arba in Canaanite times (as stated later in Gene-
sis 23:2):
Genesis 23:2. . . . Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron . . .
Hebron still exists and has a population of about twenty-five thou-
sand. Its Arabic name is "El-Khalil" ("the friend") in honor of Abra-
ham, "the friend of God." Various ancient oaks in its vicinity are
pointed out as the "oaks of Mamre" but it is not possible that any of
them are really four thousand years old.
Amraphel
After the separation of Abraham and Lot, the "cities of the plain"
with which Lot had cast his lot were subjected to invasion by armies
from the east. The heads of the invading force are named:
Genesis 14:1. . . . Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar,
Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;
This seems to picture the situation as it existed in the days of the
final decay of Sumeria.
Elam, the constant enemy of Sumeria (see page 35) now has
the upper hand. It had been conquered by Sargon of Agadc and for
centuries had remained more or less under Sumero- Akkadian rule. After
Ur's final gasp of power had faded away, however, Elam moved in.
In fact, Elamite onslaughts may have helped bring Ur to final ruin.
(I would like to imagine that the news of this reached Abram in
Haran or Canaan. If so, it might have seemed as though Cain were
slaying Abel at last— see page 34— and helped fix that legend in the
mind of those who traced their descent from Ur.)
Ellasar may well be the city referred to in Babylonian records as
Larsa. This was a city on the Euphrates about twenty miles upstream
from Ur. Ur's decline meant its temporary rise. Tidal is sometimes
GENESIS 69
identified with Tudhaliya I, the ruler of some Hittite tribe. (I will
have more to say about the Hittites later.)
The ruler mentioned in this verse who has received the lion's share
of attention from Biblical scholars is, however, Amraphel king of Shinar.
At this time— about 1900 B.C.— the Amorites (see page 50) had taken
over Babylon. Eventually, they were to take over all of Sumeria, so
that Amraphel, possibly a local ruler and no more, is already called,
a little prematurely, the king of Shinar.
The greatest ruler of the Amorite line was, as I have said earlier,
Hammurabi, who ruled about 1700 B.C. and is best known for the
code of laws issued in his reign. A copy was discovered in modem
times on a diorite stele eight feet high. Hammurabi eventually con-
quered Larsa, which, under its powerful king Rim-Sin, had made things
hot for him for a while. He also conquered Elam. (Nevertheless, Elam
had its recurrent periods of power later. The column on which the
code of Hammurabi was inscribed was found in Susa, the Elamite
capital, where it may have been taken after a successful Elamite raid
on Babylon during one of the periods of weakness of the latter city.)
It has long been customary to say that Amraphel was Hammurabi,
but this seems quite out of the question. Hammurabi reigned some
centuries after the events of this chapter of Genesis must have taken
place. The Biblical story has Chedorlaomer of Elam the leading element
of the coalition (even though Amraphel is mentioned first in 14:1)
and this would be unthinkable in Hammurabi's reign.
The picture, then, is of a Sumeria on the decline, with Babylon
and Larsa acting as a pair of city-states under the domination of
Elam, with whom some Hittite elements are allied (or are perhaps
serving as mercenaries).
Apparently, Elam, having secured the Tigris-Euphrates, is now reach-
ing westward for the rest of the Fertile Crescent, which for some
centuries has been under the domination of whatever power had ruled
in the east.
The Vale of Siddim
Against the invaders stood the forces of what were then the most
populous and prosperous cities of Canaan, the five "cities of the plain":
7°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar, concerning which there
will be more to say later.
Apparently, they had paid tribute for twelve years but now they
refused further payment and prepared to resist.
Genesis 14:3. All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim,
which is the salt sea.
The "salt sea" is the inland sea into which the Jordan empties
and a most unusual body of water it is. It is not large in size, only
about forty-seven miles long and not more than ten miles wide. Its
area is 370 square miles, which makes it only slightly larger than the five
boroughs of New York City.
The descending Jordan River is at 1286 feet below sea level when
it finally enters the "salt sea," the shores of which are thus lower than
any other land area in the world.
If the depression in which the salt sea rests could be filled to
sea level, it would form a much larger inland sea some two hundred
miles long and twenty miles wide, almost as large as the state of Con-
necticut.
The reason why the salt sea does not fill the depression is simple.
The amount of water it receives— that of the Jordan River carrying
to it the rainfall upon the mountains in southern Syria and Lebanon-
is small. Its temperature is high (readings of up to 140 0 F. are recorded
in its neighborhood) and the loss of water by evaporation is high.
The salt sea represents a puddle, so to speak, which has partly dried.
The water brought in by the Jordan River is fresh but it does
contain small amounts of chemicals dissolved from the soil it passes
over and the banks it passes between. These chemicals accumulate in
the salt sea. If the salt sea had an opening to the ocean the chemicals
would be washed out as fast as they came in and the waters of the
sea would remain fresh. But there is no opening and the sea loses
water only by evaporation. The chemicals do not evaporate and remain
behind; more is constantly being added and none is removed. As a
result, the sea is now from 23 to 25 per cent dissolved chemicals,
mostly sodium chloride (common salt) and magnesium chloride, plus
smaller quantities of a variety of other substances. It is rightly named
the salt sea.
So heavy is the salt concentration (seven times that of the ocean)
GENESIS 71
that nothing can live in the waters of the sea. For that reason, the
Greek geographers took to calling it the Dead Sea, and it is by that
name that it is best known to us. The name Dead Sea does not,
however, occur in the Bible.
Despite the fact that the Dead Sea is a partly dried puddle resting
at the bottom of a depression, we must not get the idea that it is
almost all gone and that another little push will cause it to disappear
altogether in a final burst of evaporation. Remember that the water
of the Dead Sea fills part of the Great Rift Valley. This allows the
Dead Sea, low though its level has fallen, to be one of the deepest
lakes in the world. Its average depth is 1080 feet and its greatest
depth is 1310 feet. The volume of water it contains is considerably
greater than that in some apparently much larger lakes (in terms of
surface area) which are very shallow. The Dead Sea contains about
twelve times as much water, for instance, as does our own Great Salt
Lake, although the latter, in terms of area, is four times as large.
The Dead Sea is a major source of chemicals and indeed plants
now exist in its neighborhood for the extraction of potassium chloride
from its waters. Chemicals that kill life in too great a concentration
can act as fertilizers in proper dosage. Nowadays, the Dead Sea lies
between the nations of Jordan and Israel.
The Dead Sea is divided into two unequal parts by a small peninsula
that extends into it from the eastern shores. The northern part, making
up about two thirds of the whole area, is the deep portion. The
southern part, making up the remaining third, is quite shallow, with
depths of from three to thirty feet. It is possible that the "vale of
Siddim" mentioned in Genesis 14:3 refers to the neighborhood of this
southern portion of the Dead Sea particularly.
Rephaims
The army of Chedorlaomer, on its way down the western half of
the Fertile Crescent, quickly subdued the regions east and south of the
Dead Sea:
Genesis 14:5. . . . Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with
him, . . . smote the Rephaims . . . and the Zuzims . . . and the
Emims . . .
•J2 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The use of the expression "Rephaims," by the way, is an example
of a false plural. The "im" suffix is itself the Hebrew plural, and to
add a further "-s" is superfluous. The Revised Standard Version speaks,
therefore, of the Rephaim, Zuzim, and Emim. (The Zuzim are often
identified with the "Zamzummim" mentioned later in the Book of
Deuteronomy. )
These people predated those who arrived six or seven centuries after
the time of Abraham— the Israelites and related tribes. The tradition
is strong that the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan, the Rephaim
in particular, were giants. Indeed, the tradition of the one-time existence
of giants, with sizes that are magnified as the tales are passed on from
generation to generation, are very common in the folklore of all nations.
The Bible states flatly in one much-discussed passage:
Genesis 6:4. There were giants in the earth in those days . . .
However, the Hebrew term here translated as "giants" is Nephilim
and there is no way of being certain that giants is what is actually
meant. It may simply have meant a race of mighty warriors, without
particular reference to gigantic physical size. The Revised Standard
Version evades the issue by leaving the Hebrew word untranslated and
saying "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days."
Again in the Book of Numbers, in retailing the report of the spies
sent into Canaan by Moses, the Bible has them say:
Numbers 13:33. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak,
which come of the giants . . .
Here also the term is Nephilim and the Revised Standard Version
reads: "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who
come from the Nephilim) . . ."
At least one reason for the persistent tales of giants may rest in
the wonder felt by barbarian invaders at the sight of the works of
the civilizations they replaced. Thus, when the Dorian Greeks invaded
the Peloponnesus they were struck with astonishment at the thick
walls of towns such as Mycenae and Tiryns, which had been strong-
holds of the defeated Mycenaean civilization. Viewing the tremendous
stone blocks that made up those walls, the Dorians decided that they
could only have been built by giants and the Greek myths do indeed
say that the huge one-eyed Cyclopes built those walls. (And such
walls, made up of large stone blocks, held by their own weight with-
out cement or mortar, are still called "cyclopean walls.")
CENESIS
73
Similarly, the Israelite invaders of 1200 B.C., viewing the elaborate
fortifications of the Canaanitc cities, may have felt they were fighting
giants. The term must have been used metaphorically at first, as a
dramatic expression of the technological advancement of the enemy.
Thus, the verse in Numbers already cited goes on to say:
Numbers 13:33. . . . and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers,
and so we were in their sight.
which is about how an unarmed man might feel facing a man with
a loaded rifle, or how the latter might feel facing a man in a tank.
Nevertheless, all such expressions came to be accepted literally and
in later rabbinical legends, the Rephaim, Emim, Zuzim, Zamzummim,
Ncphilim, and Anakim all became giants of absolutely tremendous
size. It would certainly be strange if they were, however, since they
were easily defeated by Chedorlaomer and also by the later Israelite
invasion.
It is almost needless to say that archaeologists have come across
no traces of giant races in historic times. To be sure, there are a
very few fossil remains, mostly teeth, indicating the one-time existence
of a manlike being even larger than the modem gorilla. These must,
however, have lived a hundred thousand years ago and more, and it
is unlikely in the extreme that any existed as recently as Abraham's
time.
Salem
Chedorlaomer's army then turned the southern flank of the Dead
Sea region, fell upon the forces of the cities of the plain, and defeated
them. The city of Sodom was sacked and Lot, Abram's nephew, was
one of those who weTe carried off to enslavement.
Abram (pictured in Chapter 14 of Genesis as a powerful desert
sheik), on hearing of this, immediately gathered his men and set off
in pursuit. He defeated a contingent of the army of Chedorlaomer
and liberated Lot, together with much of the taken loot
As Abram returned from this victorious raid:
Genesis 14:18. . . . Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread
and wine: . . .
Genesis 14:19. And he blessed him, and said Blessed be Abram . . .
74
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Melchizedek is Hebrew for "righteous king" and is thus the Canaanite
equivalent of the Akkadian name "Sargon." Nowhere else in the Bible
is Melchizedek mentioned except in reference to this single incident.
Naturally, there has been considerable speculation as to where Salem
might be located. The later Jews decided that Salem (a Hebrew word
meaning "peace") was a shortened form of Jerusalem. In the 76th
Psalm, for instance, this shows up:
Psalm 76:2. In Salem also in his [God's] tabernacle, and his
dwelling place in Zion.
As is the fashion in Hebrew poetry, the same thing is said twice,
so that Salem must be synonymous with Zion. Zion is a poetic way
of referring to Jerusalem and therefore it seems very likely that Salem
must be another reference to that city.
There have been objections to this interpretation on the grounds
that before the Israelite conquest, Jerusalem was the home of a Ca-
naanite tribe called the Jebusites and that the city itself was called
Jebus.
Yet references in Egyptian chronicles dating back to well before
the Israelite conquest refer to a city called "Urusalim" which seems
almost certainly to be Jerusalem. It would seem then that Jerusalem
is indeed a very ancient name (of which the derivation is unknown
despite the correspondence of the last two syllables to the Hebrew
word for "peace") and that Jebus is actually a late derivation from
Jebusite.
If Salem is indeed Jerusalem, as seems most likely, it is the first
appearance of that city, later so famous as the seat of the Temple,
in the Bible. In fact, one reason the legend may have been retained
and recorded in Genesis was to show that Abram himself paid tithes
at the future site of the Temple.
Damascus
Abram's great sorrow at this time was the lack of a son and heir;
a terrible situation in a family-centered tribal society. He bemoaned
the fact that only some servant, not part of his bloodline, could inherit
his accumulated property:
CENESIS 75
Genesis 15:2. . . . I go childless, and the steward of my house is
this Eliezer of Damascus.
Damascus had already been mentioned earlier in the previous chapter
as a place name used to describe the extent of Abraham's northward
raid in pursuit of Chedorlaomer:
Genesis 14:15. ... he . . . pursued them unto Hobah, which
is on the left hand of Damascus.
In Genesis 14:15, the reference might be merely to a place where
later the city of Damascus was built, but Genesis 15:2 refers to an
actual city, one with native sons. And, indeed, Damascus was in ex-
istence at the time of Abraham and even a thousand years earlier
perhaps. It is believed to be the oldest continuously occupied city
in the world.
It is about 150 miles north of Jerusalem, centered in a verdant, well-
watered area. Indeed, its name ("Dammesek" in Hebrew) is derived,
apparently, from the Aramaic phrase di masqya, meaning "having water
resources." It is an important city even today. It is the capital of the
modern nation of Syria and has a population of about 475,000.
The Hittites
Nevertheless, God promises Abram a son and also promises him that
his descendants shall inherit the land of Canaan and that the people
then, or soon to be, living in the land shall be displaced. (This promise
is repeated on several occasions in the Book of Genesis.) The tribes
dwelling in Canaan are then enumerated, as they are to be enumerated
on a number of occasions later in the Bible. They were also enumerated
in the "Table of Nations" in the tenth chapter of Genesis, as children
of Canaan. The details of the enumeration change from place to place.
Here it is given as:
Genesis 15:19. The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kad-
monites,
Genesis 15:20. And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the
Rephaims,
The Hittite Kingdom
GENESIS 77
Genesis 15:21. And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the
Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
There is wide variety in these names. The Kenites, Kenizzites, and
Kadmonites are all desert tribes of the south and southeast. The
Jebusites are the inhabitants of Jerusalem and its environs. Virtually
nothing is known of the Perizzites and Girgashites, except that they
are mentioned among the inhabitants in several of the lists. The
Rephaim I have discussed earlier (see page 72).
The Canaanites are, obviously, a general term for the inhabitants of
Canaan and the Amorites are used as an almost synonymous general
term. This may be because in Abraham's time, the Amorites had be-
come the most important of the west Semitic tribes. They had taken
over Babylon and were on the way to the control of all the Tigris-
Euphrates (see page 50).
By far the most interesting of the groups listed, however, is the
Hittites.
The Hittites are sometimes referred to as the "sons of Heth" and
Heth (the eponym of the tribe) is referred to in the tenth chapter of
Genesis as the second son of Canaan:
Genesis 10:15. And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and
Heth . . .
Because the Hittites are invariably mentioned in the Bible as among
the tribes of Canaanites, the feeling arose that they were a minor
people, no more important than, let us say, Girgashites, who have never
been heard of outside those few verses in the Bible in which they are
mentioned. And yet the fact that Heth is Canaan's second-bom be-
speaks a certain importance.
The old Egyptian and Babylonian records do speak of the "Kheta"
and the "Khatti" respectively (quite similar to "Heth") as a powerful
people north of Canaan and the thought grew that these might be the
Biblical Hittites and that they might not be an unimportant group of
Canaanites after all. Archaeological findings in the nineteenth century
seemed to point to a hitherto unknown empire that had once flourished
in Syria and Asia Minor.
Finally, in 1906, a German archaeologist, Hugo Winckler, uncovered
a store of cuneiform tablets near the village of Bogazkoy in central
Turkey, about ninety miles east of the present Turkish capital, Ankara.
7 8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
It turned out that the tablets were found on the site of the capital of
what had indeed been a Hittite Empire.
Further investigation showed that the Hittites had ruled a powerful
realm, had introduced the use of iron and of horse-drawn chariots
(something which the Assyrians were later to improve on), and, for
a few centuries, had disputed the mastery of western Asia with Egypt
when the latter kingdom was at her most powerful.
How then could this great empire go unnoticed in the Bible and be
mentioned only as an unimportant tribe?
Actually, this is an accident of history. In the time of Abraham and
his immediate descendants, the Hittites had not yet reached the fullness
of their strength. Indeed, Tidal, an early Hittite leader, is mentioned
only as a confederate of Chedorlaomer (see page 68) and as of no
more importance than a Sumerian city-state.
It was not until 1750 b.c, well after Abraham's time, that the Hittite
"Old Kingdom" was founded and that a conquering Hittite king
spread its power outside Asia Minor. And by that time, Abraham's
descendants were on their way into Egyptian bondage and the focus
of the Bible moves away for some centuries from Canaan.
After a century of Hittite decline between 1500 and 1400 b.c, there
followed a period of even greater power, and the Hittite "New King-
dom" was established. Under Shubbiluliu, who reigned from 1390 b.c.
to 1350 b.c, the Hittites reached the peak of their power and for a
moment seemed on the point of establishing their dominion over all
the civilized world. In the end, however, a long war with Egypt wore
them out; they declined first slowly and then more rapidly, and by
1200 b.c. the Hittite Empire came to a final end.
When the Israelites invaded Canaan and the Biblical focus was re-
stored to that land, the remnant of the Hittites remaining here and
there in Canaan and to the north could be viewed as an unimportant
tribe.
In short, the Bible talks of Canaan before the Hittites rose to power
and after the Hittites fell from power, but never while the Hittites
were in their full glory. And since the Bible was, until the nineteenth
century, the chief source of historical knowledge concerning the ancient
East, the great Hittite Empire vanished from sight. Only with Winck-
ler's work did archaeological finds in the Middle East restore it to the
knowledge of man.
GENESIS
79
Ishmael
At the suggestion of his wife, Sarai, Abram takes her servant, Hagar,
as his concubine.
Genesis 16:15. And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called
his son's name . . . Ishmael.
Ishmael is the eponym of a group of tribes, collectively known as
Ishmaelites in the Bible, who dwelt on the border of the Arabian desert
south and southeast of Canaan. The Israelites recognized the kinship
of these Arabian tribes to themselves by tracing the descent of those
tribes from Abraham. It was a descent through a concubine, however,
indicating the view (from the standpoint of the writers of Genesis)
that the Ishmaelites were of subordinate importance in the scheme of
things.
The Arabians in later centuries came under the influence of Judaism
and even after the establishment of Islam in the seventh century a.d.
accepted many parts of the Bible and embroidered the legendary
material of Genesis in their own fashion. They considered themselves
to be descended from Abram and Ishmael and the Arabic versions of
those names, Ibrahim and Ismail, remain favorites among Moslems.
According to Moslem legend, both Hagar and Ishmael are buried in
Mecca.
Circumcision
Ishmael is not, however, the son through whom the descendants
will arise to whom Canaan is promised. God now renews the promise,
entering into a covenant with Abraham; something that in human terms
would be a legal, binding agreement.
In return for the divine right to Canaan, Abraham, in his own
name and that of his descendants, agrees to accept God as the
national deity. God says:
Genesis 17:7. And J will establish my covenant between me and
thee and thy seed after thee . . . to be a God unto thee, and to thy
seed after thee.
8o
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
As his "signature" to this agreement, Abram (now renamed Abra-
ham—a change in name to signify the new situation) agrees to accept
the rite of circumcision. (The Hebrew term for it is berith, meaning
"covenant.") God says:
Genesis 17:10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep . . . Every
man child among you shall be circumcised.
Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin of the penis; a loss which
in no way hampers the sex act, and does not result in any inconvenience
at all.
The custom is, actually, far older than Abraham and its origins are
lost in prehistoric antiquity. It was practiced by the Egyptians and by
the Canaanites, who were under the political and cultural domination
of Egypt in Abraham's time. The rite was not practiced in the Tigris-
Euphrates region, and the tale of Abraham's circumcision may represent
a memory of the adoption of certain phases of Egyptian and Canaanite
culture by the westward-wandering nomads.
Circumcision does not seem to have been particularly important
among the pre-Exilic Jews. It was practiced, of course, and uncir-
cumcised people (such as the Philistines) were looked down upon,
but the overwhelming religious significance of the rite seemed to arise
during the Exile.
When the Jews in Babylon were trying to maintain their national
existence and to keep themselves separate from the overwhelming num-
bers of the Babylonians, circumcision grew important. It marked off
the Jews from the uncircumcised Babylonians.
It was comforting, further, to interpret that mark of separation as
the legal witness that the Promised Land, from which the Jews had
been torn by the Babylonian conquerors, was Jewish by divine agree-
ment, and would therefore be theirs again someday. The Book of
Genesis, which was being put into its final form at the time, was
naturally so edited as to stress this point.
The land was indeed restored and the importance and prestige of
circumcision was thus fixed. Through all the Greek and Roman period,
it continued to be the fundamental rite marking the entry of the infant
(or the adult convert) into Judaism. It was partly over the rite of
circumcision that Christianity and Judaism parted company in the time
of the Apostle Paul.
Although many people nowadays attempt to interpret the operation as
GENESIS 8l
a measure intended for the purpose of hygiene or cleanliness, it is likely
that to primitive man (innocent of our modem notions of hygiene) the
act had magical overtones. It may, for instance, have been intended
to ensure fertility.
Sodom and Gomorrah
But while the promised heir is awaited, the focus shifts again to the
outside world.
Abraham leams that the cities of the plain — of which Sodom and
Gomorrah were the most important— are to be destroyed in a great
catastrophe. It had been in Sodom that Lot had chosen to live (see
page 65) and it had been Sodom that had led the rebellion against
Chedorlaomer (see page 70).
Sodom and Gomorrah
Abraham intercedes on behalf of those of the inhabitants of the
cities who might be righteous and his nephew Lot is allowed to escape
in time to the smallest of the cities of the plain, Zoar (although Lot's
wife is lost, being turned into a pillar of salt, according to the story).
82
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Genesis 19:23. . . . Lot entered into "Loot.
Genesis 19:24. Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon
Gomorrah brimstone and fire . . .
Genesis 19:25. And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain,
and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the
ground.
The description of the catastrophe could match that of a volcanic
eruption, combined with an earthquake; or, conceivably, a large mete-
orite strike. Certainly such events have proved catastrophic enough even
in recent times. In 1883, a volcanic eruption on the island of Krakatoa
in the strait between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra killed
36,000 people in Java.
The question is, though, where Sodom and the other cities of the
plain might have been located before the destruction. The "plain"
seems to refer to the entire depression occupied by the Jordan River
and the Dead Sea, which, according to Genesis 13:10, was "well
watered everywhere."
Certainly the shores of the Dead Sea are bleakly infertile now but
conceivably that might have been the result of the very catastrophe
described here.
The most interesting possibility follows from certain signs that in-
dicate that in Abraham's time, the level of the Dead Sea may have
been some feet lower than it is today. It might therefore have been that
the Dead Sea was at that time confined only to its deep portion, the
northern two thirds (see page 71). The shallow, southern third might
have been the dry, or perhaps marshy, plain on which Sodom and its
sister cities were located, with a fresh-water table that kept the area
fertile as it drained northward into the Dead Sea. This area might,
indeed, have been the very "vale of Siddim" referred to in Genesis
It might then have been that the catastrophe which overwhelmed
Sodom and the other cities, whether a volcano or earthquake or mete-
orite strike, led to a slight subsidence of the land, so that the waters of
the Dead Sea flooded southward; and this flood might have been made
the worse as the result of a rise (for some reason) of the general water-
level of the Sea. If all this were so, what was left of the cities (and
considering the size and make-up of Canaanite cities of 1900 B.C., it
wouldn't be much) would be covered by the waters of the Dead Sea.
CENESIS 83
It is only fair to say, however, that no extra-Biblical evidence of
such a catastrophe is known and there are no reports of any remains
of civilization buried under the waters of the southern end of the
Dead Sea.
Although not mentioned here, two of the other cities of the plain
were also destroyed, according to Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 29:23. . . . like the overthrow of Sodom, and
Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in his
anger . . .
Zoar, the last city of the plain, and the refuge of Lot, was spared.
In the Book of Jeremiah, the prophet inveighs against Moab, mention-
ing Zoar among its cities:
Jeremiah 48:33. And joy and gladness is taken from the . . .
land of Moab; . . .
Jeremiah 48:34. . . . from Zoar even unto Horonaim . . .
From the known location of Moab, this would place Zoar, most likely,
southeast of the Dead Sea, perhaps nearly at the edge of the present
shore, just far enough from the other cities to have escaped the catas-
trophe and inundation. No trace of Zoar remains in modern times.
During medieval times, by the way, when few Europeans ever saw
the Dead Sea, impressions of it, arising out of the nineteenth chapter
of Genesis, were most horrible. Its waters were thought to be black; the
vapors above it poisonous; birds could not fly over it. None of this is
true, of course. Its climate is miserable and its waters are bitter and
contain no life, but it is not poisonous externally, and men can swim in
it if they choose. (Such swimming is a remarkable experience, for the
salt concentration makes the water unusually dense and one cannot sink
in it even if one tries.)
Moab and Ammon
Lot's two daughters escaped with him from the destruction of Sodom.
While hiding in a cave near Zoar, the daughters, at least, are depicted
as convinced that the destruction had been universal. Feeling themselves
to be the only possible mothers of future humanity, they made use of the
only man available, their father, after making him drunk.
8 4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Genesis 19:37. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name
Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
Genesis 19:38. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called
his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of
Amman unto this day.
The Moabites and Ammonites were peoples related to the Israelites
in terms of language and culture, and the Biblical writers recognized
this relationship by having them descended from Lot, the nephew of
Abraham.
The Moabites and Ammonites descended upon Canaan from the
eastern desert some five centuries after Abraham's time and perhaps a
century before the Israelites themselves did. The Bible says this in its
own fashion by placing the time of birth of the eponyms of Moab and
Ammon before the time of birth of the eponym of Israel.
The actual origins of the names Moab and Ammon are not known,
but they can be twisted to imply incestuous origin. "Moab" may mean
"from father" and "Ben-ammi" seems to mean "son of my people." If
this is taken to read "from [my own] father" and "son of my [own]
people" nothing more is needed. Since for centuries after the Israelite
conquest of Canaan, Moab and Ammon remained perennial enemies
of the Israelites, the writers of Genesis were probably only too pleased to
record the folk tale of their scandalous origin.
Gerar
After the destruction of Sodom, Abraham apparently felt the need
of moving away from unpleasant associations and of making a new start.
Genesis 20:1. And Abraham journeyed from thence . . . and so-
journed in Gerar.
Gerar is about forty miles west of Hebron and a little to the south.
It is only about ten miles from the Mediterranean coast and not more
than twenty miles northeast of what would now be considered the
boundary of Egypt.
The writer of Genesis speaks of Gerar as being in Philistine territory
for its king, on returning to his city, is recorded as having:
Genesis 21:32. . . . returned into the land of the Philistines.
GENESIS 85
Canaan in the Time of the Patriarchs
Again, at the end of the description of happenings during Abraham's
stay at Gerar, a summary, as follows, is presented:
Genesis 21:34. Abraham sojourned in the Philistines' land
many days.
This should not be taken to mean that the Philistines actually occu-
pied the territory of Gerar in Abraham's time. Gerar was in the area
which eventually became Philistine, to be sure, some five centuries
immediately preceding the time that Genesis was reduced to writing so
it was best identified in that fashion. The anachronism was similar
in nature to that involved in "Ur of the Chaldees" (see page 58).
86
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Beersheba
While Abraham was in southern Canaan, a son was finally born to
him and his wife, Sarah, and he was named Isaac.
In order that there might be no confusion as to who was to be
Abraham's heir, Hagar, Abraham's concubine, and her son, Ishmael,
were, at Sarah's insistence, cast out.
Genesis 21:14. . . . and she [Hagar] departed, and wandered in
the wilderness of Beersheba.
Wilderness is a term referring to uninhabited territory and presumably
the city itself had not yet been founded. Its founding is attributed in
the same chapter to Abraham, who is recorded as having dug a well in
the area. He established the ownership of that well by coming to a
formal agreement with the king of Gerar, an agreement involving an
oath rendered inviolate by the ritual sacrifice of seven lambs.
Genesis 21:31. "Wherefore he called that place Beersheba . . .
The name of the town can be said to mean either "well of the oath"
or "well of the seven" or, perhaps, "seven wells." In any case it is the
water supply that marks the importance of the place. In the semi-arid
land of Canaan, a reliable well or wells is essential for a permanent
community and Genesis therefore deals in some detail with traditions
concerning the digging of wells.
Beersheba, about twenty-eight miles southwest of Hebron, is about as
far south as one can go and expect to find a reliable water supply. It is
therefore the southernmost sizable town in Canaan and is usually
taken by the Biblical writers as representing the southern boundary of
the land. Farther south is the desert, or Negev (which is simply a
Hebrew word for "south").
When Palestine was under Turkish rule prior to World War I, Beer-
sheba was a small village with the Arabic name of Bir-cs-saba. Some of
its wells were still in existence and the largest was called the "Well of
Abraham." In 1917, the British invaded Palestine from Egypt and
won a victory over the Turks at Beersheba, one which led to the rapid
conquest of Palestine.
G E N E S I S 87
Beersheba is now part of Israel, has a population of about 32,000,
and is still the southernmost sizable town in the land (except for Elath,
the Red Sea port) . Its present importance depends upon the fact that it
is an industrial and manufacturing center, thanks in part to its near-
ness to the chemicals produced at the Dead Sea, a little over thirty miles
to the east.
Paran
Ishmael, after being cast out, made his home in the desert regions
south of Canaan:
Genesis 21:21. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his
mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
Paran is an ill-defined area usually marked on the maps as including
the northern portion of the triangular peninsula of Sinai, which lies
between Canaan and Egypt. The nomadic tribes wandering there, and
in the portions of Arabia neighboring it, are the Ishmaelites par
excellence.
The region, thanks to its closeness to Egypt, would be under Egyptian
influence even when Canaan itself was free, so that the fact that Ishmael
had an Egyptian mother and an Egyptian wife seems to express the
geographical and political situation in the personal terms appropriate
for an eponym.
Moriah
There follows then the well-known story of Abraham's rocklike faith
and his readiness to offer his son, Isaac— his long-awaited son— as a
human sacrifice at God's order. At the last minute, however, Abraham
is held back from the deed, and a ram is sacrificed in Isaac's place.
The place of the near sacrifice of Isaac is not closely specified. God's
instructions are:
Genesis 22:2. ... get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him
[Isaac] there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains . . .
88
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
There seems no way of determining where the land of Moriah might
be. It is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible or anywhere outside the
Bible. It is over two days' journey from Beersheba for Abraham sighted
it on the third day, but the direction in which he was traveling is not
given.
Among the later Jews, the tradition grew that the place of the near
sacrifice of Isaac was destined to be the very place at which the Temple
of Solomon was to be built. This place is referred to as Zion in every
Biblical reference but one. The exception is a late-written reference:
2 Chronicles 3:1. Then Solomon began to build the house of the
Lord at Jerusalem in mount Moriah . . .
Actually, the chance that the place of Isaac's ordeal and that of
Solomon's Temple are the same may be flattering to later Jewish nation-
alism but is not at all likely to be true. Even in Abraham's time, the hill
in Jerusalem was occupied and was within a well-fortified city. Abraham
would not have had entry into it without careful negotiation that
Genesis would surely have detailed.
Aram and Chesed
Meanwhile, Abraham's brother Nahor was back in Haran and news
concerning him was brought to Abraham:
Genesis 22:20. . . . Milcah . . . hath also born children unto thy
brother, Nahor;
Genesis 22:21. Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel
the father of Aram,
Genesis 22:22. And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Bethuel.
Genesis 22:23. And Bethuel begat Rebekah . . .
These are eponyms, of course, and the most important are Aram and
Chesed. Aram is the eponym of the Aramaeans and, earlier in Genesis,
is presented as a son of Shem. This apparent contradiction may be the
result of the effort of the final editors of Genesis to keep each of two
well-known traditions.
The two separate births of Aram also serve two separate functions
if Aram is viewed as an eponym representing a people, rather than as an
individual human being. In the tenth chapter, Aram is presented as a
GENESIS
son of Shem to indicate that the Aramaeans were independent of As-
syria at the time Genesis was reduced to writing (see page 23). Here,
in the twenty-second chapter, Aram is presented as a son of Nahor,
brother of Abraham, to indicate the kinship of the Aramaeans to the
Israelites.
As for Chesed, he is probably the eponym of the Chaldeans
("Kasdim" in Hebrew). This is rather appropriate historically, since the
Aramaeans and Chaldeans emerged from the desert into the Fertile
Crescent at nearly the same time (see page 58).
The other names mentioned undoubtedly represent various Aramaean
or Chaldean tribes and speculation about them is fruitless now. Huz
(better "Uz" as in the Revised Standard Version) and Buz are of some
interest with respect to the Book of Job, a matter which will be taken
up in the appropriate place.
This short genealogy is also of direct interest to the Israelite readers
of Genesis since Rebekah is listed as a daughter of Bethuel, who is
himself first cousin to Isaac. Since Rebekah is later to many Isaac, she
is one of the ancestresses of the Israelites.
Machpelah
Eventually, Abraham's wife, Sarah, died at a time when she and
Abraham were living in Hebron once more (referred to here at first by
its Canaanite name of Kirjath-arba ) . Abraham bought a burial plot of
"the children of Heth." This is usually interpreted as meaning "Hittite"
though there is some argument about that which is not easily resolved.
The transaction is carefully detailed.
Genesis 23:19. And after this, Abraham buried Sarah ... in the
cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre . . .
Eventually, Abraham himself was buried in the cave (Genesis 25:9)
as well as Isaac and his wife, and Isaac's younger son and one of his
wives (Genesis 49:30-31; 50:13), all direct forebears of the Israelites.
By New Testament times, a tradition had arisen that a particular spot
in Hebron represented the Cave of Machpelah. The Moslems (who
were to be in occupation of Hebron for thirteen hundred years) respect
the tradition and improve on it. The traditional site is enclosed in
9°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
stone walls like a fortress and the enclosure is called the "Haram" (the
"forbidden" place). One end is taken up by a mosque and the whole
is treated with the deepest awe.
Mesopotamia
The time had now come for Abraham to be concerned over finding
a wife for Isaac, Proud of his ancient lineage, he did not wish to have
Isaac intermarry with any of the Canaanite peoples among whom he
lived. He decided, therefore, to send his steward to Haran where his
brother, Nahor, and his family still lived. A wife was to be selected from
among that family.
Genesis 24:10. And the servant . . . arose, and went to Meso-
potamia, unto the city of Nahor.
The word "Mesopotamia" is Greek and not Hebrew. It is used as a
translation of the Hebrew term "Aram-Naharaim" with reference to the
country surrounding Haran. The Revised Standard Version retains
"Mesopotamia" but the Catholic and Jewish versions in my possession
use "Aram-Naharaim" without translation, as does the Anchor Bible.
Of course, Aram-Naharaim is rather an anachronism as the use of the
term "Philistine" was earlier (see page 85). The Aramaeans were
not actually in possession of that region for some centuries after the
time of Abraham.
Mesopotamia means "between the rivers" and was applied by the
Greeks to the land between the Tigris and Euphrates, at first only to the
portions north of Babylonia and then to the whole region. In that sense,
Haran, and all of Aram-Naharaim (which means "Aram on the rivers"),
is in Mesopotamia. The term "Mesopotamia" remained popular in the
west down to World War I, and was the most used name for what I have
been calling the Tigris-Euphrates region, and Babylonia.
Prior to World War I, Mesopotamia was a possession of Turkey.
It was taken from Turkey after World War I and became a British
mandate. At that time, the native name of the land, Iraq, came into
favor and is now used exclusively. In 1932, Iraq was recognized as an
independent nation. Although Iraq includes most of the ancient Meso-
potamia, it is not quite extensive enough to include Haran within its
borders.
GENESIS
Syria
A bride was indeed found for Isaac. She was Rebekah, earlier men-
tioned as the daughter of Bethuel and granddaughter of Nahor (see
page 89). She had also a brother, Laban, with whom the negotiations
for marriage were carried on, and who was to play an important part
later in Genesis.
The matter is summarized:
Genesis 25:20. And Isaac was forty years old when he took
Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan-
Aram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.
Padan-Aram (or "Paddan-Aram" in the Revised Standard Version)
is clearly a term synonymous with Aram-Naharaim.
The term "Syrian" is the Greek version of "Aramaean" and through-
out the King James Version, the terms "Aram" and "Aramaean" are
translated as "Syria" and "Syrian" respectively. The Revised Standard
Version speaks of "Bethuel the Aramaean" and "Laban the Aramaean"
in this verse— although even to call them Aramaeans is anachronistic.
The term "Syria" stems back to a Babylonian word, "Suri," for a
district along the upper Euphrates. In later times, the Greeks, pushing
eastward, encountered this portion of the Aramaean lands first. The
name Syria (in Latin spelling) came to apply to the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean generally.
In the Bible, once that was translated into Greek, Syria came to be
applied, in particular, to the region north of Canaan, which retained its
independence of Assyria in the ninth and eighth centuries b.c. This
became the Syria, with Damascus as its capital, which plays so important
a role in the First and Second Books of Kings.
The region north of Canaan has remained Syria ever since, through
Greek, Roman, and Moslem occupation. After World War I, Syria was
freed of Turkish rule and was put under French mandate. In 1945,
after World War II, the French also left and Syria became an inde-
pendent republic, again with Damascus as its capital. It includes Haran
near its northern border.
9 2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Midian
Before Genesis turns to a consideration of Isaac's descendants, how-
ever, it clears up the matter of the various Abrahamic lines through
concubines. Thus:
Genesis 25:1. Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was
Keturah.
Genesis 25:2. And she bare him . . . Midian . . . and Shuah.
Other descendants, over a dozen, are listed, but most are names
only. All are eponyms, one would assume, of various Arabian tribes,
of whom Midian is by far the best known. Midian is the eponym of the
Midianites who ranged over the land of Midian. This is usually marked
on the maps as occupying the northwest comer of Arabia, separated
from Sinai by a narrow arm of the sea, and thus quite close to the
"wilderness of Paran" occupied by the Ishmaelites. Indeed, the Midian-
ites and Ishmaelites are used almost synonymously in the Bible.
Shuah is of some interest in connection with the Book of Job, a matter
which will be taken up later.
The descendants of Ishmael are given later in the chapter, all of whom
are now only names. Twelve of them are given, representing twelve
tribes, analogous perhaps to the twelve tribes of Israel. One of the tribal
eponyms is Massa, a name with some significance when the time comes
to take up the Book of Proverbs.
Abraham is recorded, then, as dying at the age of 175, and as being
buried in the cave at Machpelah by Isaac and Ishmael. A half century
later, Ishmael died at the age of 137 and now with all loose ends care-
fully knotted, Genesis turns to Isaac and his descendants.
Edom
Isaac and Rebekah have twin sons, Esau and Jacob. The characters
of the two are contrasted: Esau is a rough hunter, an unsubtle man
of the outdoors, loved and admired by his father. Jacob is a quiet,
shrewd man living at home and the favorite of his mother.
Esau is the elder by a few minutes and is therefore entitled to the
GENESIS 93
birthright; that is, to the inheritance of the main portion of his father's
property. He is also entitled to a father's blessing as his chief heir and
such a blessing had great legalistic value in the society of that time.
Jacob managed, however, to outmaneuver his older brother. At one
point, when Esau was returning faint and weary from a hunt, he asked
for some of the soup of red lentils which Jacob was preparing.
Genesis 25:30. . . . Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red
pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.
Jacob allowed him to eat but only after demanding the cession of the
birthright in exchange, and receiving it.
The writer of Genesis thus gives Esau the alternate name of Edom
("red"), connecting that with the soup of red lentils that he desired.
This made Esau (Edom) the eponymous ancestor of the Edomites,
who, in centuries to come, were to occupy the territory south of Moab.
On the other hand, Jacob, who later in Genesis is given the alternate
name of Israel, is the eponymous ancestor of the Israelites.
Throughout Old Testament times, there was continuing enmity be-
tween the Israelites and the Edomites. This is reflected backward into
an enmity between the eponymous twin brothers.
Such enmity arose not only over the enforced sale of the birthright,
but also as a result of a second successful deceit on the part of Jacob.
Isaac, now blind and awaiting death, decided to give Esau the final
blessing. To forestall this, Jacob dressed himself in Esau's clothes and
put goatskins on his arms to imitate Esau's hairiness, and, pretending
to be Esau, obtained his father's blessing.
Both these tales show a younger brother achieving hereditary dom-
inance over an older. This forecast the actual historic situation— well
established at the time Genesis was reduced to writing. The Israelites
entered Canaan only after the Edomites had become well established
on the outskirts, so that the Israelites were the "younger brother." On
the other hand, through the centuries that followed the rise of David,
the Israelites ruled over the Edomites.
Bethel
To prevent the possible murder of Jacob by a naturally resentful older
brother, Rebekah decided to send her younger son away, at least
94
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
temporarily. She persuaded Isaac to order him to Haran to get a wife
for himself from the descendants of Nahor (as had been done in the
case of Isaac himself).
On his nearly five-hundred-mile journey northward, Jacob slept at a
certain place and dreamed of a ladder extending to heaven, with angels
ascending and descending. He determined this to be a vision of God's
dwelling place and decided that the ground on which he was standing
was holy. (The Anchor Bible suggests that the vision of a ladder was
really that of a ziggurat, which is built with steps working up along its
outer walls.)
Genesis 28:19. And he called the name of that place Bethel . . .
The name "Bethel" means "house of God," an obvious reference to
a temple, or even a ziggurat, which may have stood on the site quite
early in Canaanite times.
The sacred traditions of Bethel were to have important consequences
in the days of the divided kingdom a thousand years later, and to be a
source of heresy among the Israelites. The city itself is located about
fifty miles northeast of Beersheba and about eleven miles north of
Jerusalem. It is now represented, according to general belief, by a
village named Beitin.
Reuben and His Brothers
Jacob reached Haran safely and obtained not one wife, but two: Leah
and Rachel, the daughters of Laban, who was the brother of his mother
Rebekah. The girls were therefore his first cousins.
Carefully, the writers of Genesis record the birth of his children,
beginning with his first:
Genesis 30:32. And Leah conceived and bare a son, and she
called his name Reuben . . .
Jacob went on to have thirteen children listed by name: seven by
Leah, two by Rachel, two by one concubine, Bilhah, and two by
another concubine, Zilpah. Of these, twelve were born during his
twenty-year stay with Laban and one was born after his return to
Canaan.
GENESIS 9;
These may be listed as follows:
Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dinah;
Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin;
Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali;
Zilpah: Cad, Asher.
All of these were sons, except for the one daughter, Dinah. It was
Benjamin, the youngest child, who was born after Jacob's return to
Canaan.
Each of the twelve sons was the eponym of a tribe of Israelites, though
Joseph was, to be more accurate, the ancestor of two tribes, of which
his sons were the eponyms.
It is sometimes tempting to interpret this in terms of a confederation
of tribes uniting for the purpose of conquering Canaan and continuing
to form a loose union (at times very loose) afterward. The tradition
of descent from a single man, Jacob, would then be a way of marking
off that confederation (binding it legally, in the family sense) as op-
posed to other related tribes— those of Edom, Moab, and Ammon, for
instance— who did not join the confederation or even opposed it.
Furthermore, the division into four groups according to the maternal
ancestress might indicate closer interrelationships. The "Leah tribes"
may have formed the initial confederation, to which a pair of "Rachel
tribes" later joined and the others still later.
However, such interpretations must remain guesswork. The only in-
formation we have concerning the early history of the Israelite tribes
is what can be found in the Bible and this is not enough for the purpose.
It is interesting, though, that most of the sons of Jacob remain only
names in the Book of Genesis. The only two who really appear as
individuals are Judah and Joseph, the former eventually playing the
chief role among the Leah tribes and the latter the chief role among the
Rachel tribes. Moreover, when the Israelite kingdom was divided, the
Joseph tribes (there were two of them) dominated the northern king-
dom, while the tribe of Judah dominated the southern kingdom.
Genesis is built up chiefly of a pair of traditions, one developed in
the northern kingdom, with tales of Joseph prominent; the other
developed in the southern kingdom, with tales of Judah prominent.
While members of all twelve tribes are Israelites, it is the members
of the tribe of Judah only that are, strictly speaking, Judeans, or Jews.
9 6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Seir
Jacob prospered in Haran and finally, after long-drawn-out quarreling
with his father-in-law, Laban, left with his wives, his children, his
cattle, and his goods. His next problem was to face his estranged
brother, Esau. He had to prepare the way for such a meeting:
Genesis 32:3. And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his
brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.
Esau is pictured as already dwelling in the area which, centuries later,
was to be occupied by the Edomites. Seir is an alternate name of the
land which is more usually called Edom.
More specifically, Seir is the name given to the range of mountains
that covers much of Edom. This range runs in a north-south direction
from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba, the northeastern arm of the
Red Sea. Directly to the west of this range is a deep, narrow depression,
which is now called Wadi el-Arabah, a continuation of the Great Rift
Valley.
The Wadi cl-Arabah starts below sea level at the Dead Sea, but rises,
and at its highest point, just about halfway between the Dead Sea and
the Gulf of Aqaba, it rises to some seven hundred feet above sea level,
though even at that point it is flanked by considerably higher ground,
east and west.
Sometimes the name Seir is applied specifically to the highest moun-
tain peak of the Seir range, which is known as Mount Seir. It is located
about thirty miles south of the Dead Sea and is about 4400 feet high.
An alternate name of Mount Seir is Mount Hor. This reflects the
fact that prior to the occupation of the land by the Edomites, it was
occupied by a group of people called Horites. Thus, in the description
of the peoples defeated by Chedorlaomer, the account includes:
Genesis 14:6. And the Horites in their Mount Seir . . .
The Horites were, apparently, a non-Semitic people related to the
Hittites. It was only a relatively small segment of these that had found
their way so far south. Their main concentration was farther north and
they are more frequently called "Hurrians." (The Horites to the south
GENESIS 97
may, however, have been a distinct people with a name that only
coincidentally resembled that of the Hurrians of the north.)
Like the Hittites, the Hurrians (Horites) had not yet reached the
period of their greatness in patriarchal times. About 1475 B.C., however,
they formed the kingdom of Mitanni along the northern Euphrates,
taking up the area referred to in the Bible as Aram-Naharaim. For a
while, Mitanni was one of the great powers of western Asia and held out
against a conquering Egypt. A century later, however, it was over-
shadowed by the Hittite New Kingdom and by 1275 B.C. it was defeated
and absorbed by the Assyrians.
When the Israelites were conquering Canaan, the great days of
Mitanni were over. Like the Hittites, they had flourished during the
interval when the Bible's attention is absent from Canaan, and their
deeds are therefore not recorded.
The Hurrians had, apparently, more of an influence over the early cus-
toms of the patriarchal period than had been expected. The Anchor
Bible painstakingly analyzes the tales of the marriages of the patriarchs,
of the position of concubines, of questions concerning birthright, and
so on, and finds that much that would otherwise be puzzling in the
stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob becomes clear in the light of Hur-
rian custom.
Earlier I had explained that the Anchor Bible expressed doubt as to
whether Abraham's origins were in Ur or in Haran (see page 59) and
whether the Israelites could trace their ancestry to Sumerians or to
Aramaeans. If Haran were the origin, it would perhaps be at a point
in time before the coming of the Aramaeans but not before the coming
of the Hurrians (or the people from whom the Hurrians had borrowed
their culture). Perhaps one might properly have the Israelites say: "A
wandering Hurrian was my father." The fact that the Hurrians were not
Semitic is not a crucial argument against this theory. It seems clear that
the Israelites adopted the Canaanite language when they occupied
Canaan; who can tell what their language might have been earlier. It
might have had strong Hurrian components.
Israel
Esau came to meet Jacob and the two approached each other east of
the Jordan. Jacob made ready for the meeting in considerable fear. His
98
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
company, including his wives and children, were most vulnerable. The
mere act of traveling with them, of getting the company across rivers,
for instance, was difficult.
Genesis 32:22. And he rose up that night . . . and passed over the
ford Jabbok.
The Jabbok River is a tributary of the Jordan, flowing into it from the
east at a point about twenty-five miles north of the Dead Sea.
After Jacob had supervised the crossing of the Jabbok on the part of
his company and while he yet remained alone on the other side "there
wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day." In the morning,
Jacob's adversary said:
Genesis 32:28. . . . Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but
Israel . . .
and thus he became the eponym of the Israelites. The descendants of
Jacob are regularly called "the children of Israel" in the Bible. Once the
Israelites conquered Canaan, it becomes the "land of Israel." When the
kingdom of David and Solomon breaks up, the northern part, which is
the greater in area, population, and power, is called Israel.
Finally, when the modern Jewish state was established in Palestine in
1948, it took the name Israel.
Shechem
Fortunately, Esau seemed to hold no grudge against Jacob, but
treated him graciously and generously. Nevertheless, Jacob, not com-
pletely trusting the good will of his brother, managed to persuade Esau
to return to Seir and to leave him and his family to their own devices.
Jacob then settled down in Canaan:
Genesis 33:18. And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem . . .
and pitched his tent before the city.
Shalem is not mentioned, as a city, elsewhere in the Bible. It is the
Hebrew word for "peace" and the passage as it stands in the King
James Version is clearly a mistranslation. The Revised Standard Version
has it: "And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem." In other words
he did not come to Shalem, a city of Shechem; he came "in peace" to
the city of Shechem.
GENESIS
99
The City of Shechem
Shechem is about thirty miles north of Jerusalem and is considerably
farther north than the areas where Abraham and Isaac dwelt. It was
more than a hundred miles north of Seir, and no doubt Jacob felt that
this was the sort of comfortable distance he wanted between himself
and Esau.
Shechem is located in a narrow valley, not more than a hundred yards
wide, between two mountains; a most strategic position, for it controls
the road from the Jordan River to the sea, and from southern Canaan
to northern. Through much of Biblical times, therefore, it was the most
important city north of Jerusalem.
For forty years after the division of the Davidic kingdom, Shechem
served as the capital of the northern kingdom. After that, when the
capital of the northern kingdom was moved to Samaria, five miles north-
west of Shechem, the importance of the older city began to decline.
After the destruction of Judca by Rome, the Emperor Vespasian initi-
lOO
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
ated the rebuilding of a town near the site of what had once been
Shechem, renaming it Neapolis ("new city"). This has been distorted
into Nablus, its present name. It has a popultion of about 42,000.
Shechem was an important religious center, too. The first altar built
by Abraham after he entered Canaan was near Shechem:
Genesis 12:6. And Abram passed through the land unto the place of
Sichem [Shechem] . . .
Genesis 12:7. . . . and there builded he an altar unto the Lord . . .
All through Biblical times, Shechem retained its sacred character and
it served as a rival at times even to the Temple at Jerusalem.
Hamor the Hivite
Jacob's stay in Shechem was, however, marked by tragedy:
Genesis 34:1. And Dinah, the daughter of Leah . . . went out to
see the daughters of the land.
Genesis 34:2. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite,
prince of the country, saw her, he took her . . . and defiled her.
The inhabitants of Shechem are here spoken of as Hivites. These are
mentioned chiefly in connection with Shechem in the present instance
and, in the Book of Joshua, as inhabiting Gibeon, a city some twenty-
five miles south of Shechem. It is usual, therefore, to consider the
Hivites another petty Canaanite tribe, concentrated in central Canaan.
The Anchor Bible suggests, however, that the Hivites are a Hurrian peo-
ple. Indeed, there may be some confusion, here and there in the Bible,
between Horites, Hivites, and Hittites, and it is not really practical to
try to untangle the matter completely.
Shechem wanted to marry Dinah after the rape, but the sons of Jacob
agreed to permit this only if Shechem and all the males of the city
would agree to be circumcised. (The lack of circumcision would seem
to indicate that the Shechemites were not Semitic and this is a point in
favor of the Hurrian theory.) After the circumcision, while the
Shechemites were sore and uncomfortable, the sons of Jacob struck at
them to avenge the rape.
Genesis 34:25. . . . Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren . . . came
upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
GENESIS 101
This chapter of Genesis breaks into the personal story of Jacob and
his sons and seems to describe a bit of early tribal history. It is not likely
that two individual human beings would attack a city. Rather, this is a
war of tribes, represented by their eponyms. Even Shechem, the
rapist, is an eponym.
What may have happened is that three tribes in alliance attempted an
assault on central Canaan prior to the general Israelite conquest of the
land. The tribe of Dinah was defeated at Shechem and virtually de-
stroyed and was then avenged by the tribes of Simeon and Levi, who
themselves however, must have suffered badly and retired greatly weak-
ened, eventually to join the Israelite confederacy when it gathered to
assault Canaan.
That this is so is suggested by the fact that during the tribal period
during and after the conquest of Canaan, Simeon and Levi were
among the weakest of the tribes. Simeon occupied land in the far south
and was absorbed by Judah soon after the conquest. Levi was never
even assigned any coherent district but merely held certain isolated
towns. The Levites in later times served a priestly function and were
never again noted as warriors.
That the assault on Shechem was really a failure is indicated by the
fact that Jacob is recorded as protesting bitterly against the raid
and as finding himself forced to leave the area for fear of reprisal.
Nevertheless, the stay of Jacob in the area brought on certain patri-
archal associations with Shechem. A mile and a half east of the city is
still to be found "Jacob's Well," and a bit farther east, the tomb of
Joseph. Indeed, the tradition arose in New Testament times that all of
Jacob's sons were buried near Shechem.
Ephrath
Jacob and his family, after the troubles at Shechem, traveled south-
ward about forty miles, passing through Bethel with its awe-inspiring
memories for Jacob and then on to a point somewhere between
Jerusalem and Hebron.
En route, the caravan had to stop for Rachel was giving birth to her
second son, Benjamin, Jacob's youngest and the only son to be born in
Canaan. With this birth, however, came tragedy again, for Rachel did
not survive.
102 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Genesis 35:19. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to
Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.
This is the first mention of Bethlehem in the Bible, Ephrath being
its earlier, Canaanite name, or perhaps being the name of the tract of
land in which the town itself was located.
Bilhah
While Jacob and his family dwelt in the region between Bethlehem
and Hebron, still another variety of unpleasantness took place.
Genesis 35:22. And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land,
that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his fathefs concubine: and
Israel heard it . . .
Nothing further is said about this, as though the writers of Genesis
found the matter too repulsive to pursue.
And it may be that this, too, reflects early tribal history. The tribe of
Reuben must have been quite powerful at first. Since Reuben is listed as
the oldest son of Israel, it may have been the leader of the confederacy
when it was first formed.
The episode described above, may mirror an attempt by Reuben to
make its leadership absolute. (One of the methods by which a usurper
attempted to dramatize and legitimize his position in Old Testament
times was to take over the harem of his predecessor. Absalom did this
when he rebelled against David, his father.) There may have followed a
civil war ("Israel heard it") in which Reuben was defeated. Certainly,
Reuben's primacy was lost and when the Israelites conquered Canaan,
Reuben played a minor role. Nor did the tribe survive long afterward.
Amalek
Before going on with the tale of Jacob's sons, the writers of Genesis
again pause to tie up some loose ends. The death of Isaac at the age of
180 is described, and then the genealogy of Esau is given and disposed
of. Notably:
GENESIS 103
Genesis 36:10. These are the names of Esau's sons; Eliphaz . • .
Genesis 36:11. And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman . . .
Genesis 36:12. And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz . . . and
bare . . . Amalek . . .
Eliphaz and Teman are of interest in connection with the Book of
Job and this will be discussed when that book is taken up.
As for Amalek, he is the eponym of the Amalckitcs, a tribe appar-
ently considered by the Israelites to be related to the Edomites, since
they lived south of Canaan near the Edomite territory.
Amalek is the last of the eponyms of the non-Israelite nations. Genesis
has mentioned up to this point a number of tribes as having descended
from Terah. All of these may, in a very general sense, be classified as
Hebrews, since all are descended from Eber, the great-great-great-grand-
father of Terah. The relationships can be made clear from the accom-
panying simplified genealogical table.
Seir the Horite
The Book of Genesis then goes on to make a quick list of the rulers of
Edom. They list first the Horite rulers who preceded the Edomites:
Genesis 37:20. These are the sons of Sen the Horite . . .
Seir is the Horite eponym of the nation as Edom is the Hebrew
eponym. It is very likely, of course, that the Edomites did not replace
the Horites root and branch, but, as is customary in the case of such
conquests, settled among them and intermarried with them.
Thus, although Esau is earlier described as having married "daughters
of Heth" (Genesis 26:34), one of his wives is, in this present chapter,
described as "Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite," and another
as:
Genesis 36:2. . . . Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter
of Zibeon the Hivite.
(The second "daughter" in the verse is changed to "son" in the Re-
vised Standard Version.)
By Hivite, here, is probably meant Horite. For that matter, it is not
entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that by "Elon the Hittite" is
a * & * w 2; h
B
.2.
o
\3-
a §
'II
2 2
o
S3
t fl O C o,
CENESIS IO5
meant Elon, the Horite. As I said earlier, the Hittite-Hivitc-Horite situa-
tion is hopelessly confused at times. It seems very likely, however, that
these passages of the Bible indicate an intermingling of the Edomite
invaders with the Horites already dwelling in the land.
Bela and Jobab
The chapter ends with a list of the successive kings that reigned over
Edom before the kingship had been established in Israel. The Edomite
kingship was not hereditary, since each new king seems to be unrelated
to the one before, so that an elective monarchy may have been evolved.
The first two kings are of interest.
Genesis 36:32. And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom . . .
Genesis 36:33. And Bela died, and Jobab . . . reigned in his stead.
Bela the son of Beor is sometimes equated with Balaam the son of
Beor, who shows up in the Book of Numbers as an adversary of the
Israelites, while Jobab is sometimes equated with Job, the hero of the
book of that name.
The first identification is very unlikely and arises only through the
probably accidental similarity of names. The second identification may
also be unlikely, but it is a more attractive one for there are other con-
nections between this chapter of Genesis and the Book of Job. For in-
stance, among the names given in the Horite genealogy is one reminis-
cent of Job's native land, Uz.
Genesis 36:28. The children of Dishan are these; Uz, and Aran.
Potiphar
Genesis now enters its last section and deals with the story of Joseph,
who is described as Jacob's favorite son and who is more than a little
spoiled by the fact. He earns the hatred of his brothers by acting as a
talebearer against them and by telling of dreams he has had which seem
to foreshadow a day when he will be supreme over the family.
One day, Jacob sent Joseph to inquire after the welfare of his brothers,
who were grazing the family's flocks in the neighborhood of Shechem
io6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
(another reason for patriarchal associations— particularly that of Joseph
and his brothers— with that city).
They had left Shechem by the time he arrived and had passed on to
Dothan, a town about fifteen miles farther north. Joseph followed them
there. The brothers spied him from the distance and conspired to kill
him. At the intervention of Reuben or Judah (there are two traditions
here, one stemming from the northern tribes and the other from the
southern, and both are included by the final editors of Genesis) he is
not killed but is sold to passing nomads. Jacob is then told Joseph was
killed by wild beasts and the old father goes into deep mourning.
Joseph is carried southward, then westward to Egypt:
Genesis 37:36. And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto ?ot>
phar, an officer of Pharaoh's . . .
Except for the short episode of Abraham's stay in Egypt (see page
64) this is the first appearance of this land as the scene of the Biblical
story. Where Abraham's stay involves no details except for the mention
of Pharaoh and his harem, the description of Joseph's stay is much more
circumstantial. It begins immediately with the mention of the name of
an Egyptian which, indeed, is a thoroughly Egyptian name. Potiphar is
the shortened form of "Potiphera" meaning "he whom Ra gave." (This
is analogous to the name "Theodore" in our own Western world.)
Pharez and Zarah
In view of the overwhelming importance of Judah among the tribes in
later history, the writers of Genesis felt it necessary to incorporate some
Judean genealogy. This seemed to them to be the logical point— Joseph
had disappeared and the lapse of time could be emphasized by a shift in
focus.
In circumstantial detail, it is told how Judah was tricked into consort-
ing with Tamar, a woman who had originally been married to two of his
sons, each of whom had died young and childless. Tamar then gave
birth to twins, presenting them as new heirs to Judah.
During the childbirth, one of the twins began to emerge and the
midwife tied a scarlet thread about the finger, declaring him to be the
first-bom. However:
C E N E S I S 107
Genesis 38:29. . . . he drew back his hand . . . [and] his brother
came out: and ... /its name was called Pharez.
Genesis 38:30. And afterward came out his brother . . . and his
name was called Zarah.
The two brothers are called Perez and Zerah in the Revised Standard
Version and these names are preferable.
The twin brothers are eponyms who mark the two chief clans of
the tribe of Judah, the Zerahites (or Zarthites) and the Pcrezites (or
Pharzites). The tale told here undoubtedly reflects some early tribal
history.
Apparently, within the tribe of Judah, the Zerahites achieved early
dominance after two clans, represented by Judah's older sons, had died
out. Therefore Zarah (Zerah) is listed here as technically the first-born.
In time, however, the Perezites achieved the leadership, as is indicated
by the fact that Zarah drew back and allowed his twin the actual primacy
of birth.
If the importance of the Perezite clan needed reinforcement in the
eyes of the later Jews, it is only necessary to point out that the great
hero-king, David, and therefore all the subsequent Judean kings were
Perezites, a fact made clear in the Book of Ruth.
Pharaoh [of Joseph]
In Egypt, Joseph, through his diligence and intelligence, prospers
and is made steward of Potiphar's household. However, Potiphar's wife
attempts to seduce the young man and, on failing, accuses him to her
husband of having tried to rape her. Joseph is cast into prison.
There, again by his diligence and intelligence, he gains the favor of
the jailer. He also gains the respect of his fellow prisoners by showing
himself to be an ingenious interpreter of dreams. In particular, Pharaoh's
butler, temporarily imprisoned, is gratified by Joseph's dream interpre-
tation and promises to mention the matter to Pharaoh, but forgets.
Nor is it only the prisoners who dream:
Genesis 41:1. And it came to pass . . . that Pharaoh dreamed, and
behold, he stood by the river,
Pharaoh dreamed that seven fat cows emerged from the river, but
that seven lean cows emerged after them, ate the fat cows but remained
io8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
as lean as before. He woke, then fell asleep and dreamed similarly
about seven good ears of grain and seven bad ones.
Pharaoh's wise men were unable to interpret the dream to the
monarch's satisfaction. Now Pharaoh's butler finally remembered the
Hebrew slave who had been in prison with him.
Joseph was called for and interpreted the dreams at once. The seven
fat cows and seven good ears of grain, he said, meant seven prosperous
years, while the seven lean cows and seven bad ears of grain represented
seven years of famine to follow, years of famine that would consume
the land. The grain of the good years should therefore be carefully
preserved and stored against the bad years to come.
Pharaoh was struck favorably by the interpretation and suggestion
and placed Joseph in complete charge. Quickly he became the all-power-
ful prime minister of Egypt.
The question is, then, who was this Pharaoh, who was so favorable
to a Hebrew slave and who, later, was to be benevolent to the family of
Jacob generally? He could not very well be the usual run of Pharaohs
for Egypt had so long been isolated that they were quite xenophobic;
hostile at worst and patronizing at best to foreigners. The Egyptian
Pharaoh was considered as a god by the Egyptians and by Pharaoh
himself and he was not likely to delegate power to Asian foreigners.
— Unless he himself were an Asian foreigner.
If we rum to Egyptian history, we find that the Middle Kingdom
of Abraham's time (see page 64) lasted for two hundred years, from
1991 b.c. to 1786 B.C., enduring through much of the patriarchal period.
When the Middle Kingdom decayed there followed a new period of
anarchy in Egypt, with weak dynasties ruling different portions of the
kingdom.
About 1730 b.c. Egypt's weakness made it possible for Asian invaders
to begin moving into the land. The Semitic invaders who, for a century
and a half, were to rule the Nile delta and, on occasion, parts of
the upper reaches of the Nile also, are called the Hyksos, which seems
to be derived from Egyptian words meaning "foreign kings."
The Hyksos, making up the 15th and 16th dynasties in the ancient
(more or less mangled) lists of Egyptian kings, established their capital
at the northeastern edge of the delta, the point closest to Asia.
There is little record of the Hyksos and their rule remaining today,
for later Egyptian historians apparently found the story of Egypt's
defeat and subjection too unpleasant to talk about. The only account
GENESIS IO9
we have is that to be found in a book by Josephus, a Jewish historian
who lived in the first century a.d. and who quoted from Manetho, an
Egyptian historian who lived three centuries before Josephus' time.
From this, we might judge that the Hyksos ruled not only over the
Nile delta, but also over part of the western half of the Fertile Crescent.
If so, this is important.
Until the story of Joseph, the Book of Genesis had ignored Egypt
except for a ten-verse description of Abraham's visit there. This was
natural. Canaan had been, from the time of Sargon of Agade at
least, and perhaps even from the time of Lugal-Zagissi of Erech, un-
der the influence of the Tigris-Euphrates region. For much of the
period, indeed, the Fertile Crescent had been a single realm, politically.
This meant that movement was free between all parts of the Fertile
Crescent. Abraham had come from Ur; his servant, and later Jacob, had
returned to Haran temporarily; Sodom and its allies fought against in-
vading armies from the Tigris-Euphrates.
Egypt, however, was another civilization and another world and was
separated from the Fertile Crescent by a more or less permanent politi-
cal boundary. Beginning in 1730 B.C., however, that political boundary
was erased and the same power— the Hyksos— ruled over Canaan and
over Egypt. Travelers between the two regions could move freely and
when the Midianites purchased Joseph in Canaan it was easy to sell
him as a slave in Egypt.
The picture of the friendly and gracious Pharaoh of Joseph's time
may therefore be that of one of the Hyksos rulers. He would find
Joseph a fellow Semite and would consider it perfectly thinkable to
place the Egyptians under a Semitic viceroy.
Even this much is conjecture, of course, although it is reasonable
conjecture, for the Bible makes no mention of the Hyksos as such, and
no historical source outside the Bible (or those derived from the Bible)
makes any mention of Joseph or of the dramatic events described in
Genesis concerning his stay in Egypt. And even if Joseph's Pharaoh
were indeed one of the Hyksos kings, it seems, on the basis of present
knowledge at least, to be beyond hope to pin down which particular
one of the line he might be.
According to Josephus, the tale of the Hyksos is the Egyptian ver-
sion of the coming of Joseph and, later, of his family, to Egypt The
Hyksos, according to Josephus' views, were the Israelites, but this is not
taken seriously by anyone nowadays.
no
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The River [Nile]
In Genesis 41:1, when the description of Pharaoh's dream begins,
it is stated "he stood by the river."
In Egypt, it was never necessary to describe what was meant by
"the river." There was only one river and it virtually is Egypt. Egypt
is a desert land where it virtually never rains. What water there is comes
from the single river that threads its length from south to north. What
communication and trade there was in Biblical times came through the
boats that passed up and down the Nile; what population existed, lived
by virtue of the food that could be grown in the land that was
flooded each summer by the life-giving waters of the Nile. The Greek
historian Herodotus, in a famous phrase, called Egypt "the gift of the
Nile" and so it was.
(Modem Egypt is still the gift of the Nile today. Fully twenty-seven
million people crowd the narrow banks of the river while the land to
east and west is virtually empty.)
It is not surprising that in Pharaoh's dream, he imagined that:
Genesis 41:2. . . . there came up out of the river seven well-fa-
voured kine and fatfleshed . . .
Cattle do not literally emerge from a river, but if these cattle represent
seven years of good harvest, it is only fitting they come out of the Nile,
for all harvests depended upon its water. And seven lean cows would
emerge from the Nile, if the Nile floods fell below normal height as
once in a while they disastrously did.
The word "Nile" is neither Egyptian nor Hebrew, but is a Greek
word of unknown derivation. "Nile" does not occur anywhere in the
King James Version of the Bible, although it is used in the Revised
Standard Version, which has Pharaoh "standing by the Nile," for in-
stance, in Genesis 41:1.
The Egyptian word for the Nile was "Hapi," a sacred name used to
represent the god of the river. In ordinary usage, the Nile was simply
"the river," a phrase which in Egyptian is "Yor" and in its Hebrew
form "Yeor."
The Nile is about four thousand miles long, a hair longer perhaps
CENESIS 111
The Nile River
than the Missouri-Mississippi and the Amazon. That would make it the
longest river in the world.
Its remotest headwaters are in Tanganyika, where the Kagera River
rises and flows 429 miles (forming a bit of the western boundary of
Tanganyika) and then discharges into Lake Victoria, which in terms
of surface area is the second largest fresh-water lake in the world. (Our
own Lake Superior is the largest.) From the northeastern corner of
Lake Victoria emerges the White Nile, which flows northward through
Kenya, the Sudan, and Egypt and into the Mediterranean at last.
The main tributary is the Blue Nile. This rises in Lake Tana in
northern Ethiopia. It flows east to begin with but makes a huge circle,
112
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
joining the White Nile, at last, in Khartoum, the capital of the Sudan.
The stretch of river downstream from the junction of the White Nile
and the Blue Nile is the Nile itself, unqualified by adjective.
Two hundred miles north of Khartoum, another smaller tributary
joins the Nile from the east and thereafter the river flows a thousand
miles to the sea without a single further tributary, flowing through a
solid stretch of desert in doing so.
The Nile flood is derived from the annual rains that fall not in Egypt
but in east central Africa far upstream. The flood waters carry rich muck
from the Ethiopian and Kenyan highlands. The Blue Nile, though
shorter than the White Nile, is the more important in this respect,
contributing much more to the flood volume.
The great length of the Nile, stretching southward as far as Egyp-
tian, Greek, or Roman eyes could see, presented the ancient world with
a mystery. Where was the far-off source of the Nile? Occasional reports
that the Nile had its origin in great lakes were spread by Greek and,
later, by Arabic merchants, and this seems to have reflected successful
exploring expeditions.
It was not, however, until the 1870's that the African expeditions of
the Anglo-American explorer Henry Morton Stanley placed east Africa
and its lakes on the map in the full light of day, and only then
was the Nile traced completely from source to sea.
On
With Joseph now a high official, Pharaoh bestowed on him a high-
born wife:
Genesis 41 =45. . . . and he gave him to wife Asenath, the daughter
of Potipherah priest of On . . .
Joseph's new father-in-law bore the same name as his old master,
but the two need not necessarily be one man. Different men do bear
the same name.
On, or Anu, was a city of great religious importance to the Egyptians.
It was located at the southern base of the delta just about six miles
northeast of modem Cairo. It was an important center for the worship
of the Egyptian sun-god, Ra, so that the Egyptians called it "Pa-ra"
("house of Ra"). In the Book of Jeremiah, a direct Hebrew transla-
GENESIS 113
tion of Pa-ra is used for the city. Jeremiah in thundering against
Egypt warns of the destruction that will follow a Babylonian invasion
and says:
Jeremiah 43:13. He shaft, break also the images of Beth-she-
mesh . . .
where "Beth-shemesh" means "house of the Sun."
The Greeks also used a translation of Pa-ra as the name of the city,
calling it Heliopolis ("city of the Sun") and it is by that name that it
is best known to posterity. It remained a center of Egyptian religion
and learning throughout Old Testament times. It was well known for its
obelisks and the Revised Standard Version changes the passage in
Jeremiah 43:13 and makes "images of Beth-shemesh" into "obelisks
of Heliopolis." Cleopatra's Needles, two great obelisks, taken out of
Egypt and erected, one in London and one in New York's Central
Park, are from Heliopolis.
After 300 B.C., when the Macedonian dynasty, the Ptolemies, took
over Egypt and made Alexandria (about 220 miles northwest of Heli-
opolis) their capital, Heliopolis declined. Only a few ruins remain.
Goshen
Joseph's rule over Egypt was successful. The produce of the seven
good years was carefully stored against the coming famine and two
sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, were born to him. Then, when the
famine came, Egypt was prepared.
Canaan was not, however. Jacob and his sons suffered from lack of
food and the sons were sent to Egypt to buy grain. Joseph used the
occasion to test them. He treated them harshly and demanded they
bring Benjamin (whom Jacob had solicitously kept at home) with them
if they ever came for food again.
They did so and Joseph maneuvered matters so that he seemed to
have a legitimate reason for taking Benjamin captive and putting
him to death. Once before the brothers had been willing to sacrifice
one of themselves, regardless of the pain they might cause their
father. Had they changed? Apparently, they had. They refused to
abandon Benjamin, and Judah, in one of the most touching speeches
of literature, offers himself as a slave in place of Benjamin since other-
n 4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
wise "thy servants shall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant
our father with sorrow to the grave."
And then Joseph finally revealed himself and there was a grand
reconciliation.
Since Joseph was now Egypt's all-powerful viceroy and since his suc-
cessful handling of the crisis of famine must have made him popular
throughout the land, he had no hesitation in inviting his entire
family into Egypt; nor had Pharaoh any hesitation in welcoming them.
The word Joseph sent to his father was:
Genesis 45:10. And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and
thou shalt be near unto me . . .
Goshen is usually represented as being located on the eastern border
of the Nile delta. This would be the first portion of Egypt reached
by settlers from Canaan. Furthermore, if all this were indeed taking
place during the period of Hyksos rule, the Egyptian capital of Tanis,
where Joseph would be holding office, would be right at the western
borders of the district. Jacob and his sons would thus indeed be "near
unto" Joseph.
Jacob, transfigured with joy, prepares to obey. Genesis lists the males
who accompany him to Egypt, his sons, grandson, and great-grand-
sons, and counts all the males of the company (including Joseph and
his sons) at the round figure of seventy.
They arrive, are introduced to Pharaoh, and then:
Genesis 47:11. . . . Joseph . . . gave them a possession in the
land of Egypt ... in the land of Rameses . . .
By "land of Rameses" is meant Goshen. It is an anachronistic name
for it refers to a city of the region which was not built in the Hyksos
period but only some centuries later.
Ephraim and Manasseh
Jacob was 130 years of age when he entered Egypt and lived there
seventeen years. Then came the time when he felt himself to be dying.
In his last days he asked Joseph to bring his sons to him. Joseph
brought his young sons for their grandfather's blessing, and Jacob
adopted them as his own:
CENESIS I15
Genesis 48:5. And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh . . .
are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.
Joseph thus came to be the ancestor of two of the tribes of Israel,
those of Ephraim and Manasseh, and sometimes they are lumped to-
gether as the "Joseph tribes."
Since Jacob had twelve sons and since one of them, Joseph, was
the ancestor of two tribes, there turned out to be thirteen tribes alto-
gether. However, the tribe of Levi never received any distinct tract
of land in Canaan in later centuries, but formed a priestly caste that
lived scattered through the land. The twelve tribes of Israel, as
represented in a later age by definite pieces of Canaanite territory,
were: Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Dan, Gad, Issachar, Zebulun, Asher,
Naphtali, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh.
The fact that Joseph fathered two tribes while the rest only fathered
one each indicates that he received the birthright (a double share of
the inheritance) in place of Reuben, who would ordinarily have
received it as the eldest son. Joseph's inheritance of the birthright
is made plain, at least in the King James Version, when Jacob tells
him:
Genesis 48:22. Moreover I have given to thee one portion above
thy brethren . . .
This is not a clear verse, however. The Hebrew word shekem,
translated here as "portion," usually means "shoulder" and therefore
perhaps a mountain slope. In the Revised Standard Version, Jacob
is made to say "Moreover I have given to you rather than to your
brothers one mountain slope . . ." On the other hand, it might refer
to the city of Shechem, and the Anchor Bible translates it, "I give you
as the one above your brothers, Shechem . . ."
As a matter of fact, when Canaan was apportioned among the tribes,
centuries later, Ephraim received one portion and Manasseh, the
second Joseph tribe, received another portion— including Shechem and
its environs.
When Jacob prepared to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph care-
fully arranged matters so as to have Manasseh, the first-born, within
reach of Jacob's right hand, since the old man, like his father before
him, was blind with old age and could not tell them apart, unaided.
u6
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Nevertheless, Jacob crossed his arms, placing his right hand upon the
head of Ephraim, the younger.
This again probably reflects early tribal history and suggests a situa-
tion parallel to that involving Pharez and Zarah (see page 107). At
the start, Manasseh may have been the dominating group within the
Joseph tribes, so that tradition has him Joseph's first-born. At some
later date, however, Ephraim obtained and kept the upper hand.
Judah
Jacob then ordered his sons to gather round his deathbed while
he forecast the future of each to them. There follows the "Testament
of Jacob," which seems to reflect the situation as it existed in the
time of David, so that the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis probably
received its final form in that time.
The language used is oracular and, while possibly easily understood
as referring to known historical events by the men of the time,
has become obscure to us with the passage of time.
The first three sons are dismissed quickly. Their early domination
had faded completely by David's time:
Genesis 49:3. Reuben, thou art my firstborn . . .
Genesis 49:4. Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because
thou wentest up to thy father's bed . . .
Genesis 49:5. Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of
cruelty are in their habitations.
Genesis 49:7. Cursed be their anger . . .
The traditional reasons for their failure are Reuben's seduction of
Bilhah, and the attack by Simeon and Levi on Shechem (see pages
100 and 102).
Turning then to his fourth son, Jacob is depicted as becoming en-
thusiastic.
Genesis 49:8. Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall
praise . . .
Genesis 49:10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet . . .
GENESIS 117
This reflects the fact that when a stable and powerful kingdom
was established over the land of Israel, it was David of the tribe of
Judah that established it. Israel had by then defeated all its enemies
and had established its domination over the entire western half of the
Fertile Crescent. It seemed to have brought the story of Israel to a
triumphant climax, a kind of "happy ending" that suffuses this part
of the Testament.
To be sure, less than a century after David's coming to power, the
kingdom was split in two and the Judean dynasty of David retained
only the lesser half. Presumably the forty-ninth chapter was placed
in its final form before the split had taken place.
Of course, the kingship over the southern portion of the land re-
mained in the Davidic line without real interruption until 586 B.C.,
so that at no time for over four centuries did the sceptre "depart
from Judah."
The remaining brothers aTe, with one exception, noted briefly and
cryptically, and, on the whole, favorably. The exception is, of course,
Joseph, who is praised exuberantly and lengthily. This is a reflection
of the importance of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh during the
tribal period before the establishment of David's kingdom.
It might also have been a matter of diplomacy. The northern tribes
did not take kindly to Judean dominance and indeed broke away
quickly enough. It would not have been politic to withhold praise
from their outstanding representative.
Jacob then died at the age of 147, and was brought back by his
sons to Canaan that he might be buried in the Cave of Machpelah
where were already buried his grandparents, Abraham and Sarah,
his parents, Isaac and Rebekah, and one of his wives, Leah.
About half a century later, Joseph died too, at the age of 1 10, and
with that the Book of Genesis comes to an end at a date which
might be estimated to be 1650 b.c. The curtain drops over an Egypt
in which the Hyksos are still in firm control and the Israelites are
still welcome guests of the nation.
When the curtain rises again, with the opening of the next book,
some four centuries have passed, and conditions have changed dras-
tically.
2. EXODUS
EXODUS ' EPHRAIM • PHARAOH [OF THE OPPRESSION] • PITHOM AND
RAAMSES ■ THE DAUGHTER OF PHARAOH • MOSES • MIDIAN ■ PHARAOH [OF
THE EXODUS] ■ HOREB • JEHOVAH • AARON • THE MAGICIANS OF EGYPT •
PASSOVER ■ ABIB • THE RED SEA • PI-HAHIROTH • OMER • AMALEK ■ JOSHUA •
CHERUBIM ' THE URIM AND THE THUMMIM • THE MOLTEN CALF
Exodus
Between the first two books of the Bible there is a long chronolog-
ical gap of some four centuries following the entry of Jacob and
his sons into Egypt. To bridge the gap, the second book begins with
a hasty summary, listing the names of the heads of families who
entered Egypt:
Exodus 1:1. Now these are the names of the children of Israel . . .
The phrase "Now these are the names" is a translation of the
Hebrew ve-elleh shemoth. The Jews use that phrase as the name of
this second book, usually reducing the phrase to the single word
"Shemoth" ("names"). The Septuagint named the book "Exodos"
(or, in the Latin equivalent, "Exodus"), meaning "going out," be-
cause it deals with the departure of the Israelites from Egypt.
Ephraim
Though the sons of Jacob are listed at the beginning of Exodus,
the Bible makes no further mention of the eponymous patriarchs of
the tribes as individuals, with a single exception.
In the First Book of Chronicles, which quickly reviews the gene-
alogies of early history as viewed by the Jews of the post-Exilic
EXODUS 119
The Exodus
period, there is a passing mention that some sons of Ephraim (Joseph's
younger son) took part in a cattle raid against a city in southern
Canaan and were slain in the process.
1 Chronicles 7:22. And Ephraim their father mourned many
days, and his brethren came to comfort him.
It is not clearly stated that this passage refers to the period during
which the Israelites were in Egypt and, indeed, it is improbable
that it does. Egypt was then in a strong and settled period of its
history and it is unlikely that cattle raids within its borders would
be permitted. Then, too, the site of the raid is some 150 miles from
Goshen and that is a long distance to go chasing cattle.
It may well be that this verse records an early passage in tribal
history within Canaan some centuries after the period when Jacob's
sons had been alive. Ephraim may here represent the tribe generally
lather than the ancestor individually.
120
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Except for this one reference, all else concerning Jacob's sons is
extra-Biblical legend. Joseph is supposed to have been the first of
the brethren to have died and Levi the last. About 100 b.c, a book
entitled "The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs" was written, con-
raining what were purportedly the deathbed statements of each of the
twelve sons of Jacob. Each son reviewed his own life, bewailed his
shortcomings, and urged his children to avoid his sins and to practice
virtue. Whatever moral and ethical values these lectures might have,
they are valueless as history.
Pharaoh [of the Oppression]
In any case, Exodus records that after the deaths of Joseph and
his brothers, the Israelites prospered, multiplied, and grew numerous.
And then:
Exodus 1:8. . . . there arose up a new king over Egypt, which
knew not Joseph.
The new Pharaoh, unlike Joseph's kindly patron, had no sympathy
for the Israelites but, rather, feared them as a possible source of
danger in the land and, therefore, took stern measures against them.
If the Pharaoh of Joseph were, indeed, one of the early Hyksos
kings, then it seems fairly clear what happened—
The Hyksos did not, after all, completely control Egypt. Their
power was concentrated in the delta and, far to the south, native
Egyptian forces held local power and gathered strength.
About 500 miles up the Nile was a city later known to the Greeks
as Thebes and it was the most prominent city of upper Egypt. Under
the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom, its importance was
masked by Memphis and the cities of the delta. In times of political
disintegration, however, dynasties at Thebes sometimes ruled over a
virtually independent south. The nth dynasty, for instance, in the
years preceding the establishment of the Middle Kingdom, ruled from
Thebes.
Once the Hyksos conquered Egypt, Thebes had another chance.
Throughout the Hyksos period, it maintained a precarious independ-
ence, and gradually learned those military techniques (the hone and
chariot, an improved bow, the use of body armor) of which it had
EXODUS 121
been ignorant and with which the Hyksos armies had conquered
Egypt.
In 1570 B.C., Ahmose, the first king of a new dynasty, the 18th,
came to power in Thebes and launched a firm attack against the
Hyksos, now complacent and rather decadent. Ahmose defeated them,
broke their power, and made himself Pharaoh over all Egypt—
once more under a native dynasty after a century and a half of
foreign rule.
Ahmose might well have been the "new king over Egypt, which
knew not Joseph." As representative of the resurgent Egyptians,
he could have nothing but dislike and suspicion for the Israelites, who
had been brought in by the Hyksos and whom he might consider
nothing more than a remnant of them. In any renewed invasion
from Asia, Ahmose might well consider that the Israelites would join
with the invaders, to whom they would be bound by ties of culture
and language.
Ahmose's reign, though it may have marked the beginning of this
downturn in Israelite fortunes, may not have seen it carried through
to completion. This sort of thing feeds on itself. The Israelites,
treated as second-class citizens and as objects of suspicion, become
disaffected and this disaffection is itself the excuse for intensified op-
pression. The oppressor, rightly fearing the resentment of the op-
pressed, finds discrimination escalating into slavery almost automat-
ically.
Exodus 1:13. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to
serve with rigour:
Exodus 1:14. And they made their lives bitter with hard bond-
age . . .
It is the particular Pharaoh (not necessarily Ahmose; indeed, al-
most certainly not Ahmose) under whom Israelite enslavement reached
its peak who is termed the "Pharaoh of the Oppression."
In deciding, then, who the Pharaoh of the Oppression might be,
let us turn to Egyptian history.
After the time of Ahmose, the Egyptians, with the new battle
techniques they had learned from the Hyksos, entered the most mili-
tarily successful era of their history. This period is known as the "New
Kingdom" or, because Egypt spectacularly extended its power over
portions of adjoining Asia, the "Empire."
122
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The great military events that attended the establishment and
maintenance of the Egyptian Empire took place entirely during the
period of Israelite enslavement in Egypt and therefore no whisper of
it is retained in the Bible, whose writers concentrated entirely on
the fate of the Israelites.
Under Thutmose I (1525-08 b.c.) and Thutmose III (1490-36
b.c.)— particularly the latter, sometimes called "Thutmose the Great"
and "the Napoleon of Ancient Egypt"— victorious Egyptian armies
scoured the western half of the Fertile Crescent. In 1479 b.c, Thut-
mose III won a great battle at Megiddo, a city of northern Canaan,
about fifty miles north of Jerusalem. With that, Canaan and all the
land northward, nearly to the Euphrates, became Egyptian. Under
Amenhotep III (1397-70 b.c.) the empire rested upon a plateau of
prosperity and success.
With the son of Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV (1370-53 b.c),
a decline set in. The new king was a religious revolutionary. In a
land of numerous gods, he was a monotheist, recognizing a single god,
Aton, represented in nature by the sun. Since his own name Amen-
hotep means "Amen is content" and glorifies the god, Amen, the
new Pharaoh rejected the name as idolatrous and called himself
Ikhnaton ("Aton is satisfied"). He also established a new capital at
a city he named Akhetaton ("the horizon of Aton") located about
halfway between Thebes and the delta. On its site now stands the
village of Tell el Amarna.
Ikhnaton tried to establish the new monotheism throughout Egypt
by force, but the priests of the older gods fought him relentlessly
and on their side was the innate conservatism of the Egyptian people.
After Ikhnaton's early death and a short reign of only about seven-
teen years, his new religion fell apart. Under his young son-in-law
Tutankhaton (1352-43 b.c.) the old priesthood won a complete
victory. Akhetaton was abandoned and Tutankhaton was forced to
change his name to Tutankhamon.
While Ikhnaton was absorbed in his religious revolution, the Asian
dominions of the empire were under constant attack. In a.d. 1887,
the ruins of Akhetaton yielded a large cache of letters from Egyptian
viceroys in Asia. It is a melancholy tale of continuous incursions from
the north and east and of useless pleas for help to Ikhnaton, who
lacked the ability, or perhaps the will, to fight off the marauding
bands from the desert.
EXODUS
"3
A more formidable foe was arising in the north. The Hittite Old
Kingdom (see page 78) had been weakened and rendered harmless
by Thutmose III, but after that conqueror's death, the Hittites hard-
ened once more into their New Kingdom. In Ikhnaton's time, the
greatest of the Hittite kings, Shubbiluliu, was on the throne. He
conquered Mitanni and beat back the Egyptian boundary to Canaan
itself.
After Tutenkhamon's death (and it was his untouched tomb that
was discovered in a.d. 1922; see page 63) the 18th dynasty quickly
declined and petered out. In its place a new family succeeded to the
throne. This was the 19th dynasty, and its first member, Rameses I,
became Pharaoh in 1304 B.C. Under him, the Egyptian Empire ex-
perienced a new period of vigor.
This dynasty reached its peak under Rameses II ("Rameses the
Great"), whose long reign stretched from 1290 to 1223 B.C., and
during this time Egypt came into direct conflict with the Hittites.
In 1288 b.c, a great battle was fought between the two empires at
Kadesh, about eighty miles north of Damascus. The battle was in-
decisive, as was the entire war, which ended in a compromise peace
by which the Hittites retained their conquests of the previous cen-
tury. The effort to withstand Egypt had, however, fatally weakened the
Hittite power and had seriously strained Egypt itself.
Rameses II is the most famous of all the Pharaohs. His long reign
gave him ample time to indulge in all his grandiose notions. He
beautified Thebes, which was at the height of its splendor during
his reign. He covered Egypt with gigantic statues of himself, with
self-glorifying inscriptions, and is reported to have had 160 children
by numerous wives and concubines.
Rameses II contributed largely to the later legend of "Sesostris."
When, eight centuries after Egypt's great days of empire, Herodotus,
the Greek historian, visited the ancient land, the priests and anti-
quarians of Egypt gladly rehearsed the glorious past, with improve-
ments. By Herodotus' time, Egypt was far in decline and had been
conquered by two different Asian empires, the Assyrian and the
Persian. It suited Egyptian pride therefore to recall a time, now dimly
lost in the mists of the far past, when it had been Egypt that was the
world empire.
The name Herodotus reports for the conqueror was Sesostris, the
actual name of three Pharaohs of the 12th dynasty, the first of whom
124
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
might conceivably have been Abraham's Pharaoh (see page 64).
The Middle Kingdom had first carried Egypt's power beyond its bor-
ders into Ethiopia. These deeds were combined with the still greater
ones of Thutmose III and Rameses II and the whole escalated to
the point where "Sesostris" conquered all of Ethiopia, penetrated
Asia far beyond the Euphrates, marched through Asia Minor and
into Europe, subduing the plains beyond the Black Sea.
After Rameses II, there were no further grounds for dreaming of
a Sesostris. Egypt began to decline and, with only occasional minor
rallies, each less successful than the one before, continued to decline
throughout Biblical times.
Where, then, in this long history would the Pharaoh of the Op-
pression be found?
Ikhnaton offers an attractive possibility. He was unique in the
long line of Pharaohs; a rebel, a breaker of tradition, a monotheist.
Could he have been the kindly Pharaoh, welcoming the monotheistic
Jacob and his sons into Egypt? This is quite unlikely, unfortunately,
as Ikhnaton's reign is considerably too late for that.
There is another possibility. Could Ikhnaton have been reigning
at the close of the period of Israelite enslavement rather than its
start? Could he have learned his monotheism from Moses or, as some
have suggested, could Moses have learned it from Ikhnaton?
Could it be, in fact, that Ikhnaton's father, Amenhotep III, was
the strong Pharaoh of the Oppression, and that under Ikhnaton's
feeble and self-absorbed rule, the Israelites broke out of Egypt? In
favor of this are the Tell el Amama reports from Canaan of the
onslaught of the desert tribes. Might not these be the Israelites them-
selves, now out of Egypt and driving hard to conquer Canaan?
This is unlikely on several counts. In the first place, Ikhnaton's reign
is too early for the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Such an early con-
quest will not square with the better-known dates of later events in
the Bible.
This is not to deny that Canaan was under assault from the desert
under Ikhnaton but it is very likely that the assaulters at that time
were the tribes who settled down along the borders of Canaan (hav-
ing failed to penetrate its interior against Egyptian defenses) as the
Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. After all, the Biblical story is
quite clear on the point that when the Israelites themselves approached
EXODUS 125
Canaan, the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites were already es-
tablished on the ground and in firm possession of the land to the
east and south of the Dead Sea.*
To be sure, these earlier invaders were closely allied to the Israelites
and it may even be that some of the tribes who were later to
join in the Israelite confederacy were already attacking Canaan and
were to be joined later by tribes emerging from Egypt. There are
some who suggest that only the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh,
were enslaved in Egypt; and that after they left Egypt they joined a
federation of tribes who were attacking Canaan directly from the
desert.
Then, too, if the Israelites had emerged from Egypt and conquered
Canaan during and after the reign of Ikhnaton, they would have
been caught up in the gigantic campaigns of Ramcses II that fol-
lowed. The Bible could not very well have failed to capture even an
echo of the mighty battle of Kadesh.
One must look later, then, for the Pharaoh of the Oppression and
speculation inevitably alights on Rameses II himself. Why not?
Rameses II was a vainglorious despot quite capable of making the
most arbitrary use of his powers. He was engaged in a life-and-
death struggle with an Asian power and he was bound to look upon
the Asians within his own realm with the utmost suspicion. It is quite
conceivable that the Hittites would try to make use of an Israelite
insurrection to divert Egyptian power, that at least some Israelites
would look with favor on such a scheme, and that Rameses would
suspect them of complicity even if they did not. Intensified enslave-
ment and even a program of genocide is possible.
Furthermore, the reign of Rameses II is followed by a decline
during which the Israelites could have broken out of Egypt. What's
more, the decline does not reverse itself. Egypt docs not enter Asia
with renewed power so that the Israelites can conquer and occupy
Canaan without interference from Egypt.
It would seem then that Rameses II would have to be the Pharaoh
of the Oppression, if there is any Pharaoh of the Oppression at all.
This last reservation is made necessary by the fact that there is no
record outside the Bible of Israelites in Egypt, of their enslavement,
* The letters at Tell el Amama refer to the invaders as "Khabiri"; that is. "He-
brews." However, the men of Edom, Moab, and Ammon were as Hebrew as the
men of Israel.
126
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
and of their escape. In particular, none of the events in Exodus are
to be found anywhere in the Egyptian records uncovered by modern
archaeologists.
Pithom and Raamses
One of the pieces of evidence that points to Rameses II as the
Pharaoh of the Oppression is contained in the nature of the work done
by the Israelite slaves.
Exodus 1:11. . . . And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities,
Pithom and Raamses.
(The phrase "treasure cities" is clearly a mistranslation. The Revised
Standard Version has "store-cities" in its place; cities, that is, in which
provisions were stored for the use of armies advancing into Asia.)
The name Raamses (which in the Hebrew requires a very small
change to become Rameses) seems significant. The name Rameses
does not occur at all among the Pharaohs of the first eighteen dynas-
ties, but eleven Pharaohs of that name are to be found in the 19th
and 20th dynasties. Of them, Rameses II is by far the most famous
and successful; also the most self-glorifying and the most apt to name
a city for himself.
The ruins of Pithom (pa-tum in Egyptian, meaning "house of the
setting sun") were discovered in 1882 about twelve miles west of
what is now the Suez Canal. It was on a canal which Rameses II had
had built from an eastern branch of the Nile to the bodies of water
then making up the northernmost reaches of the Red Sea— a kind of
primitive Suez Canal. The ruins contain, among other things, a
statue of Rameses II, indicating that the city may well have been
built in his reign.
Pithom is located in Goshen (see page 114) and Raamses was
probably built some miles west of Pithom. Conceivably, a case may
be made here. Since Rameses II was planning his large expedition
into Asia against the Hittites, he needed good supply depots to his
rear. Pithom and Raamses on the northeastern frontier would suit
his purpose exactly, and since the Israelites were settled on the spot,
it was convenient to make use of their labor.
EXODUS 127
Although the Bible specifically describes the Israelites as having built
cities, many casual readers of the Bible seem to have picked up the
notion that the Israelite slaves built the pyramids. This is not so.
The pyramids were built a thousand years before Joseph entered
Egypt.
This also disposes of the feeling that the pyramids might be the
storehouses built under Joseph's direction to store the grain of the
seven plentiful years. The pyramids couldn't serve such a purpose
anyway, even if they were built in Joseph's time, for they are virtually
solid structures with tunnels and cavities only large enough to hold
the sarcophagus of a Pharaoh. As a matter of fact, the pyramids—
oddly enough— are nowhere mentioned in the Bible.
The Daughter of Pharaoh
Rameses II, according to the Biblical story, commanded all Israelite
boy babies to be drowned. As a result, when a son was born to a
woman of the tribe of Levi, she tried to save him by placing him
in a small boat (or "ark") of bulrushes, daubed with pitch to make
it waterproof, and setting that afloat on the Nile. (The bulrushes
were papyrus reeds, which the Egyptians used in making light boats
and the pith of which they used in making a writing material. Our
word "paper" comes from papyrus, even though paper is made from
other materials now.)
The small boat containing the baby was discovered:
Exodus 2:5. And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash
herself at the river . . . and . . . saw the ark among the flags . . .
Who the "daughter of Pharaoh" might be is, of course, not known.
She is not named in the Bible and, since Rameses II is supposed
to have had something like fifty daughters, there seems no hope of
ever identifying the young lady. To be sure, the ancient Jewish his-
torian Josephus, who retells the story of the Bible, filling in the gaps
with later legend, gives her name as Thcrmouthes, but no Egyptian
princess of that name and period is known. One of the early Church
fathers gave the name as Merris and the name "Meri" does occur in
the inscriptions of the time. But that could be mere coincidence.
128
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Moses
The Hebrew name of the child is Mosheh. In the Septuagint, the
various Hebrew names of the Bible are changed into Greek equiva-
lents. This involves some nearly inevitable changes. The Greek
alphabet doesn't include a letter for the "sh" sound, which does not
occur in Greek, so a simple "s" must be substituted. Then, since
Greek names almost invariably end in "s," a final "s" must be added.
In this way, Mosheh becomes Moses.
The English versions of the New Testament (almost all of which
was originally written in Greek) usually contain Hebrew names in
the Greek form. For instance, Jesus is the Greek form of the
Hebrew "Joshua." English versions of the Old Testament, however,
usually restore the Hebrew forms as far as possible. This was not
possible at all in the case of Moses, since that particular Greek form
had become too well known to the population generally to be altered.
The priestly editors of the Hexateuch saw in the word "Mosheh"
a similarity to the Hebrew mashah, meaning "to draw out," and
therefore gave that as the derivation of the name:
Exodus 2:10. . . . Pharaoh's daughter . . . called his name Moses:
and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
Now an Egyptian princess is scarcely going to turn to the Hebrew
language for a name (even if she could be imagined as bothering to
leam the slaves' language in the first place). Besides, Moses happens
to have a much more straightforward and natural meaning in Egyp-
tian. It means "son." (Thus Thutmose means "son of Thoth" and
Rameses means "son of Ra," both Thoth and Ra being Egyptian
gods.)
The legend surrounding Moses' infancy seems no more plausible
than the Hebrew derivation given his name. Ancient legends are full
of tales of children cast away for some reason or other who are
miraculously saved and go on to become people of great importance.
In the Greek legends, this is the case with Perseus, Oedipus, and Paris,
for instance; in the Roman legends, with Romulus; in the Persian
legends, with Cyrus.
EXODUS 129
Most significant of all is a legend told of Sargon of Agade (see
page 50) who lived over a thousand years before the time of Moses.
The legend of Sargon has been found on Babylonian tablets dat-
ing back to several centuries before the Exile. The priests in Babylon
who were preparing the Hexateuch in its final form must have heard
the legend, and it is very likely that they appropriated it.
Sargon of Agade is described as the illegitimate son of a noble-
woman who bore him in shame and secrecy, and then exposed him.
She did this by putting him in a small boat of reeds, daubed with
pitch, and letting him drift down the river. The baby was rescued by
a poor man who raised him as his own son.
The Biblical writers improved the tale, however. Moses was a legiti-
mate son and was raised by a princess.
There are no Biblical details concerning Moses' youth, but the
legends of later times fill those years with activity designed to mag-
nify the glory of the future leader of the Israelites. Josephus tells, for
instance, how invading Ethiopians had Egypt at their mercy when
Moses took over leadership of the Egyptian army and utterly defeated
the Ethiopians. There is no evidence in Egyptian annals, however, for
the events described by Josephus.
Midian
As a grown man, Moses found himself sympathizing with the Isra-
elite slaves, presumably out of humanity and possibly because he had
learned of his own origins. In a fit of anger he killed an Egyptian
overseer and, when this was found out, left Egypt hurriedly, to avoid
execution at the orders of an angered Pharaoh.
Exodus 2:15. . . . Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh and
dwelt in the land of Midian . . .
Midian, it seems quite likely, is located in northwestern Arabia, just
east of the Red Sea, about two hundred miles southeast of Goshen.
It represents the shortest distance Moses could have traveled and
placed himself outside the boundaries of Imperial Egypt.
According to later tradition, Moses was forty years old at the time
of his flight to Midian. This is too pat, for it divides Moses' Biblically
130
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
allotted lifetime of 120 years into neat thirds. From birth to 40, he
would be an Egyptian prince, from 40 to 80 an exile in Midian, and
from 80 to 120 a leader of the Israelites.
Pharaoh [of the Exodus]
While Moses was in Midian, getting married and having a son, a
crucial change took place in Egypt:
Exodus 2:23. And it came to pass in process of time, that the
king of Egypt died . . .
and that took place in 1223 B.C., if the Pharaoh of the Oppression
was indeed Rameses II.
Succeeding Rameses II was the far weaker Memeptah, who is
usually thought of as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the Pharaoh under
whom the dramatic events described in the rest of the Book of
Exodus took place.
Since these events represent little less than a complete disaster for
Egypt, it is to be expected that the reign of Merneptah might be
listed in Egyptian annals as one filled with trouble.
And so it is. To be sure, the exact events described in Exodus are
not to be found anywhere in the Egyptian records, but there was
plenty of trouble of another sort and Merneptah's reign witnessed a
time of troubles for the whole region rimming the eastern Mediter-
ranean Sea.
Every once in a while, in the course of ancient history, there come
times when nomad peoples seem to be on the move. One tribe drives
against another which in turn pushes against the next and so on like
a series of falling dominoes. The settled cities of the civilized areas of
the world eventually meet the brunt of the force and since their peo-
ples cannot easily move and yield to the pressure, civilizations often
meet with disaster at such times.
The thirteenth century b.c. witnessed one of these troublesome mass
migrations of peoples. The pressure of barbarian invasions was begin-
ning to be felt in Greece and southeastern Europe generally. Under
that pressure, raiding bands from Greece, Crete, and such areas spread
out across the Aegean Sea and plunged their way, west, south, and
east. They invaded Asia Minor, and the Trojan War may have been
an item in that invasion.
EXODUS
As a result of the disorders that racked Asia Minor then, a native
people, the Phrygians, rose to power and dealt the final blow to the
Hittite Empire, which had been fatally wounded in its great war
against Rameses II. As a result, the Hittites declined to a bare rem-
nant, and appeared to the Israelites, when they finally conquered
Canaan, as no more than another small tribe.
Then, too, some tribes leaving Asia Minor under the pressure of
invasions may have traveled westward to found the Etruscan civiliza-
tion in Italy.
The invaders from southeastern Europe landed as well on the coasts
of Egypt. To the Egyptians, they were the "Peoples of the Sea." The
Egyptians managed to fight them off but only at great cost and the
damage done the nation undoubtedly contributed greatly to the de-
cline of its vigor. In the disorders accompanying the invasion, it is not
at all unreasonable that the Israelites may have seized the opportunity
to depart.
Furthermore, for the first time since the reign of Thutmose I, three
centuries before, the Egyptian hold on Canaan was broken. A con-
tingent of the Peoples of the Sea invaded Canaan and established
themselves as the Philistines on its southern coast. Egyptian armies
were either defeated or, very likely, melted away when they were
called home to defend the motherland itself. Egyptian power did not
return to Canaan for nine centuries, and the Israelites, in their drive
to conquer Canaan, had to face only the native Canaanites and not
a powerful Egyptian army. Indeed, for centuries their most inveterate
enemies were the Philistines who had entered Canaan from the west,
while the Israelites had plunged in from the east.
It seems to make sense, therefore, to accept Memeptah as the
Pharaoh of the Exodus, whether one accepts the actual details de-
scribed in the Bible or not.
Horeb
Moses' task of leading the Israelites out of Egypt begins in Midian.
Exodus 3:1. Now Moses kept the flock of ]ethro his father in
law . . . and he led the flock ... to the mountain of God, even to
Horeb.
1 3 2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
It is common to consider mountains as particularly sacred to divine
beings; one need only consider the Greek gods and their home on
Mount Olympus. Apparently, the Bible has reference here to a moun-
tain which was considered in the old Israelite traditions to be sacred
to God.
Mount Horeb (Sinai)
The mountain is called Horeb here, but in other places in Exodus
it is called Sinai. Both names are accepted as referring to the same
mountain but it is the latter name which is much better known. It
is not located in Canaan — everyone agrees on that— so it must repre-
sent an ancient tradition of holiness indeed, one that preceded the
entry of the Israelites into Canaan. It is a holiness, moreover, which
is not associated with the patriarchal age, for Sinai is never mentioned
in the Book of Genesis.
Indeed, the holiness may trace back to Sumerian mythology for
the name Sinai could refer back to the moon-god, Sin, who was an
EXODUS 133
important object of worship both in Ur and in Haran (see page
59). In that case, though, one might wonder why there was no
association of Sinai with Abraham, who lived in both Ur and Haran.
Some scholars believe that Mount Sinai is to be found somewhere
on the Arabian side of the Red Sea, because that is where Moses was
at the time. If Sinai were really connected with Sumerian mythology,
that, too, would bespeak a location reasonably close to the Fertile
Crescent. Then too, in several poetic passages of the Bible, Sinai is
associated with mountains south of Canaan. For example, in a passage
of Deuteronomy, commonly called the "Song of Moses," we have:
Deuteronomy 33:2 .. . The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up
from Seir . . .
Indeed, considering the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, and its triclc
of saying the same thing twice with slight variation, one might even
be tempted to argue that Mount Sinai is Mount Seir (also called
Mount Hor).
However, in early Christian times the tradition arose that the moun-
tain was located on the triangular peninsula that lies on the bound-
ary between Africa and Asia and that is now, in consequence,
known as Sinai.
The Sinai Peninsula, about 140 miles long, is bounded on the north
by the Mediterranean Sea and on the south by the Red Sea. The
northern end of the Red Sea divides into two narrow arms, like
the eyestalks of a snail, which bound Sinai on the southwest and
southeast. The western horn, which is the longer and wider, is the
Gulf of Suez; the eastern, the Gulf of Aqaba.
When Egypt was powerful, Sinai was part of its realm, as during
the Middle Kingdom and during the Empire. After the invasion of
the Peoples of the Sea, the ebbing of Egyptian poweT left Sinai to its
own nomadic inhabitants. (Nowadays, Sinai forms part of modem
Egypt but was occupied by Israel after the Six-day War of 1967.)
In southern Sinai is a range of mountains among which Mount
Sinai is supposed to be located. By a tradition dating back to the
sixth century a.d. it is identified particularly with the tallest peak,
which is about 7400 feet, or nearly one and a half miles high. This
peak bears the Arabic name of Jebel Musa ("Mount of Moses").
»34
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jehovah
On Mount Horeb, Moses becomes aware of a bush that is burning
steadily but is not consumed. He approaches and God, speaking to
him out of the bush, commands him to return to Egypt and to lead
the Israelites out of slavery.
In the process, God reveals his personal name:
Exodus 3:14. And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM . . .
The phrase, capitalized as a gesture of respectful awe, is translated
I AM WHO I AM in the Revised Standard Version, with a footnote
giving alternate readings of I AM WHAT I AM and I WILL BE
WHAT I WILL BE.
Apparently the name of the Lord is here connected with some
form of the word "to be," either in the present or future tense, as
though the primary nature of God is external existence.
Moses returns to Egypt along with his elder brother, Aaron, but his
first efforts fail to impress Pharaoh. The Egyptian monarch sharpens the
oppression so that the Israelites themselves, who had first hailed Moses,
turn against him. God reassures Moses and pronounces his name
once more, this time in a briefer version:
Exodus 6:3. . . .1 appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH
was I not known to them.
The name here given for God is the YHVH I mentioned earlier
(see page 20).
In later history, the Jews grew increasingly reluctant to articulate the
actual name of God and it became a habitual gesture of respect with
them to substitute for the four consonants wherever they occur the
respectful title of "the Lord," which in Hebrew is Adonai.
In both the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version
this procedure is followed and YHVH is consistently translated as
"Lord." Exodus 6:3 is the one place where the King James Version
abandons caution and actually makes use of the name of God.
The Revised Standard Version does not do so but remains consistent
and translates the clause in Exodus 6:3 as "but by my name the
EXODUS 135
Lord I did not make myself known to them." (The translation from
the Masoretic text gives the Hebrew consonants themselves, untrans-
lated, with a footnote directing that it be read "the Lord.")
The name Jehovah is almost universally accepted by English-speak-
ing Christians as the manner of pronouncing YHVH, but that arose
by mistake.
It seems that as the centuries passed and the Jews of later history
spread throughout the east and began to speak Aramaic, Babylonian,
and Greek, in preference to Hebrew, there grew up the danger that
the proper pronunciation of the Biblical language would be forgot-
ten. The Jewish scholars therefore placed little diacritical marks un-
der the Hebrew consonants, indicating the vowel sounds that went
with them in each particular word.
For YHVH, however, they did not produce the proper diacritical
marks since the name was not supposed to be pronounced anyway.
Instead, they wrote the diacritical marks for Adonai, the word that
was supposed to be pronounced. Sometime during the Middle Ages,
a Christian scholar, supposing that the vowels of Adonai belonged
with the consonants YHVH, wrote out the name in full as Jehovah.
(The initial J in Latin is pronounced like an initial Y in English.)
This mistake has persisted and will probably continue to persist.
Actually, modem scholars seem to have decided that the correct pro-
nunciation of YHVH is Yahveh.
During the greater portion of Old Testament times it was by no
means certain that the worship of Yahveh, according to the ritual set
forth in the first five books of the Bible (which, according to long-
accepted tradition, both Jewish and Christian, were written by Moses),
would win out among the Israelites. I will, in this book, speak of
those who believed in the worship of Yahveh (particularly in the
exclusive worship of Yahveh as the only God) as Yahvists.
Aaron
Moses and his brother Aaron were of the tribe of Levi and in later
generations the priesthood was to be confined to the descendants of
Aaron, so that the expression "Levite" came to be virtually synony-
mous with "priest." In view of this, Exodus pauses here to give an
account of the genealogy of Aaron.
i 3 6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Levi is described as having had three sons, of whom Kohath
was second, while Kohath had four sons of whom the first two were
Amram and Izhar. The age at the time of death is given for Levi,
Kohath, and Amram as 137, 133, and 137 years respectively, so that
there is still the echo, here, of the patriarchal age of moderately ex-
tended lifetimes.
Exodus 6:20. And Amram took him Jochebed ... to wife; and
she bare him Aaron and Moses . . .
Exodus 6:21. And the sons of Izhar; Korah . . .
Korah, who was later to rebel against Moses and come to a bad
end, is here described as Moses' first cousin. He is also the ancestor
(despite his rebellion) of one of the guilds of Temple musicians,
variously referred to in the Bible as the Korahites, Korhites, or Kora-
thites, and who will be mentioned in connection with the Book of
Psalms.
The line of Aaron is taken further:
Exodus 6:23. And Aaron took him Elisheba ... to wife; and
she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
• « « ■
Exodus 6:25. And Eleazar . . . took him one of the daughters of
Putiel to wife; and she bare him Phinehas.
Nadab and Abihu died in the course of the Exodus but Eleazar
and Ithamar survived to become the ancestors of the two chief priestly
families of later times. Aaron was the first High Priest and he was
succeeded by his son Eleazar and, eventually, by his grandson, Phinehas.
The Magicians of Egypt
After the Levite genealogy, the writers of Exodus return to the
main current of its account.
Moses and Aaron approach Pharaoh once more and try to impress
him by turning a rod into a serpent. Pharaoh, however, scorns what
he considers a parlor trick and calls his own men to duplicate it.
Exodus 7:11. . . . the magicians of Egypt . . . did in like man-
ner with their enchantments.
EXODUS
»37
The names of these magicians are not given. In the New Testa-
ment, however, in the second of Paul's Epistles to Timothy, there is
the passage:
2 Timothy 3:8. . . . Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses . . .
There were a number who withstood Moses in the course of the
passage of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan. None of these had
names that were anything like Jannes and Jambres, names which do
not occur anywhere else in the Bible, in fact. The usual assumption,
therefore, is that Paul was drawing upon some well-known legend which
gave the names Jannes and Jambres to the Egyptian magicians who
tried to duplicate the works of Moses and to show him up as a mere
conjurer before Pharaoh. Indeed, some rabbinical legends have Jan-
nes and Jambres so impressed by Moses that they eventually joined
the Israelites, but died in the course of the Exodus.
The Red Sea
138
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Passover
With Pharaoh scorning the first demonstration, Moses and Aaron
bring, in swift succession, a series of disasters upon Egypt. These, in-
volving visitations of frogs and insects, various pestilences, unusual
weather such as hail or darkness, are generally referred to as "the
ten plagues of Egypt."
Although these plagues, if they had taken place as described in the
Bible, must have loomed large in any contemporary records or in later
histories, no reference to them is to be found in any source outside
the Bible. In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky, in his book "Worlds in
Collision attempted to account for the plagues (and for some other
events described in the Bible) by supposing that the planet Venus
had undergone a near collision with the earth. The book created a
moderate sensation among the general public for a while, but the reac-
tion of astronomers varied from amusement to anger, and the Vcli-
kovskian theory has never, for one moment, been taken seriously either
by scientists or by Biblical scholars.
The tenth plague was the crucial one. In its course, the first-bom
male of even,' house in Egypt was slain by divine action. The Isra-
elites were spared. Each family was directed to eat a ceremonial meal
and to place the blood of the lamb eaten in the course of that
meal on the door of the house:
Exodus 12:23. . . . the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyp-
tians: and when he seeth the blood . . . the Lord will pass over the
door and will not . . . smite you.
In commemoration of this awesome event, which marked the be-
ginning of the escape from Egypt and the establishment of the Isra-
elites as a nation, a ceremonial meal is eaten each year. The ceremony
is named (according to the Bible) after the promise of God to "pass
over" the Israelite houses. The original instructions refer to it thus:
Exodus 12:11. . . . it is the Lord's passover.
The Hebrew word translated here as "passover" is pesach and the
Biblical writers saw a similarity to the Hebrew word meaning "to pass
over" and therefore wrote the passages in such a way as to stress that
similarity. The real meaning of pesach is unknown.
EXODUS I39
In all probability, the Passover was an agricultural festival long ante-
dating the time of Moses. Such festivals are common in all agricultural
societies. (Americans have even invented one for themselves — Thanks-
giving.) Usually such festivals, even among the early Israelites, were
thoroughly pagan in inspiration.
The priestly writers of the Hexateuch could not revise the early
traditions in too extreme a fashion. The various festivals were too
popular and too deeply ingrained in tradition to be done away with.
The best that could be done was to associate them firmly with some
legendary event in Biblical history and divorce them from idolatry.
Passover, the most important of the agricultural festivals, was associated
with the most important event in the early legends— the Exodus.
(Such changed associations are common in the development of reli-
gions. Thus, in the early history of Christianity, the pagan celebra-
tion of the winter solstice— the Saturnalia— was converted into Christ-
mas and made into the celebration of the birth of Jesus— something
that will be discussed further in the second volume.
After the Exile, the Passover was one of the three festivals during
which all pious Jews attempted to travel to Jerusalem and worship at
the Temple. It was in the course of one of these Passovers that Jesus
was crucified.
The anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus is still celebrated at the
same time of the year as Passover, although never on the same day,
for the Christian method of calculating the day differs from the Jew-
ish method.
That anniversary is, in English, called "Easter" and this is another
example of religious adaptation. The word comes from the name of an
old Teutonic goddess of spring. A pagan spring festival was converted
into the commemoration of the resurrection but its pagan name was
kept to make the transition as easy as possible.
The word "Easter" is sometimes, quite wrongly, applied to Passover.
This is done on one occasion in the King James Version. In the
Book of Acts, it is described how the Apostle Peter was imprisoned at
the time of the Passover, with the intention of bringing him to trial
once the festival was over. The ruler is described as
Acts 12:4. . . . intending after Easter to bring him forth to the
people.
The Revised Standard Version changes Easter to Passover in this
case, of course.
140
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Abib
The month in which the Exodus took place, and in which the
Passover was celebrated, was Abib.
Exodus 13:4. This day came ye out in the month Abib.
Abib is an example of the names of the months used in pre-Exilic
times. The word means "kernel of grain" and marks the time of the
year when such kernels appeared.
Other such ancient names are mentioned here and there in the
Bible. In connection with the building of the Temple under Solo-
mon, for instance, the Bible records:
1 Kings 6:37. In the fourth year was the foundation of the
house of the Lord laid, in the month Zif:
1 Kings 6:38. And in the eleventh year, in the month Bui . . .
was the house finished . . .
The temple was then dedicated:
1 Kings 8:2. And all the men of Israel assembled . . . at the
feast in the month Ethanim . . .
During the Babylonian Exile, however, the Jews made use of the
Babylonian calendar and they kept that throughout their later history,
down to the present day. The names of the months in the Jewish
calendar are Babylonian now and are used in those Biblical books
that are clearly post-Exilic, especially the books of Nehemiah and
Esther. Thus, the month earlier known as Abid, in which Passover
was celebrated, became Nisan:
Nehemiah 2:1. And it came to pass in the month Nisan . . .
The Red Sea
After the tenth plague, Pharaoh's resistance broke and he agreed
to allow the Israelites to leave the land:
Exodus 12:37. And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses
to Succoth . . .
EXODUS 141
The location of Succoth is not agreed upon, but many people be-
lieve it to be located very close to Pithom (see page 126) or even to
be identical with it. If so, the Israelites, upon leaving Egypt, headed
east.
Had they bome northward, they could have reached and followed
the coast, taking the most direct and shortest route into Canaan.
That, however, would have led them into trouble.
The Peoples of the Sea were now invading various sections of the
Egyptian realm. (This, in fact, may well have been the historical
equivalent of the dramatic Biblical story of the plagues.) The Peoples
of the Sea were establishing themselves on the very portion of the
Canaanite coast that the Israelites would have reached first.
The Israelites, who were liberated slaves unused to war, were in
no position to take on the well-armed, war-hardened invaders from
the sea, soon to appear importantly in the Biblical story as the Philis-
tines. The Israelites had to travel eastward, therefore, in order to flank
the Philistine position and this brought them to the Red Sea.
Exodus 13:17. . . . God led them not through the way of the
land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest
peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return
to Egypt:
Exodus 13:18. But God led the people about, through the way
of the wilderness of the Red Sea . . .
The Red Sea is a long, narrow arm of the Indian Ocean, extend-
ing northwest and southeast in an almost straight line for 1450 miles.
Its width is only between 150 and 200 miles, and from its shape one
can guess that it is part of the Great Rift Valley.
The Red Sea is one of the most unpleasant parts of the ocean. It
separates the African desert from the Arabian desert and receives little
water in the form of rainfall, while the sun, baking as hotly as any-
where on earth, evaporates much water. For that reason, despite the
fact that water constantly pours into the southern end of the sea,
which is open to the main body of the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea
manages to be saltier than any other part of the ocean. It is up to
4.1 per cent salt at the closed northern end, as compared to 3.5 per
cent for the oceans generally.
The name "Red Sea" is of Greek origin and in Roman times, the
name spread out into that portion of the Indian Ocean into which
142
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the sea opened— what we now call the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian
Sea, and the Persian Gulf.
Why "Red"? There are several theories. The waters may turn red
through some infestation of microscopic plants; the shells on the shore
(or the rocks) may be red; the reflection of the setting sun as seen
from Arabia may turn the waters red. You can take your pick. Perhaps
none of these is the right reason; or perhaps there is no reason.
Pi-hahiroth
With the Israelites in the process of leaving Egypt, Pharaoh re-
gretted having given permission for their departure. At the head of
a detachment of cavalry he set out after them.
Exodus 14:9. . . . the Egyptians pursued after them . . . and
overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth . . .
The Bible then relates the story of the escape of the Israelites when
the waters of the Red Sea miraculously parted for them, and then
returned in time to drown the pursuing Egyptians.
Where did this parting take place? Presumably in the neighbor-
hood of Pi-hahiroth, but the one great catch is that no one knows
exactly where Pi-hahiroth might have been located.
We can eliminate the main body of the Red Sea at once. To
imagine that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea proper, passing over
150 miles or so of emptied sea bottom which, in places, is something
like a mile and a half deep, is unnecessary. Had they done so, they
would have ended in the main portion of the Arabian peninsula and
there is nothing in succeeding events, as described in the Bible, to
make one think that happened. The succeeding events take place,
rather, in the Sinai Peninsula and that is separated from Egypt by a
northwestern extension of the Red Sea now known as the Gulf of
Suez.
The Gulf of Suez is a miniature of the Red Sea; something of the
same shape, but not as long, not as wide, and not as deep. It is
two hundred miles long, nowhere more than thirty miles wide, and,
at its northern end, it is only eighteen feet deep.
Even the Gulf of Suez, as it exists today, may not be the site of the
Israelite "crossing of the Red Sea." The Hebrew name for the body of
EXODUS 143
water that was crossed is yam suph. The phrase is translated as "Red
Sea," but its literal meaning is "the sea of reeds."
In Exodus times (it is generally thought) the Gulf of Suez ex-
tended somewhat farther northward than it does today. In particular,
it included two shallow bodies of brackish water called the Bitter
Lakes. (These marshes are no longer on the map because they
were filled in at the time the Suez Canal was built.)
In the Gulf of Suez extended up to and including the Bitter Lakes,
this extension might have represented a shallow basin of sea water
filled with reeds along its shores, and this might have been a Sea
of Reeds in literal truth. The site of Pi-hahiroth may have been
on the shores of this vanished extension of the Red Sea.
It would seem, from the Biblical account, that every one of the
pursuing Egyptians was drowned. If a Pharaoh accompanied them,
he was drowned, too. There are no records outside the Bible which
indicate Merneptah, or any Pharaoh, to have drowned in the Red Sea.
Nevertheless, if Merneptah died in this fashion, then the Exodus
took place in 1211 b.c. by the best modern reckoning.
According to the Biblical reckoning:
Exodus 12:40. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who
dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
If this is accepted, then the entry of Jacob and his sons into Egypt
took place in 1641 B.C. This date is neatly within the period of the
Hyksos domination of Egypt as would be expected (see page 108).
Omer
The Israelites were fed, miraculously, by a food called manna
dropping from the heavens. There have been attempts to advance
a non-miraculous explanation. Some suggest the manna to have been
the exudate of some particular tree. Others suggest it to have been
a species of lichen. Whatever the nub of the account, however, it has
been embroidered out of recognition by the Biblical writers.
The tale of the manna is from the P document as can be seen from
the careful instructions given for the gathering of the manna and
the warnings to observe the Sabbath. (This form of ritualism and
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
meticulousness is characteristic of P.) It is therefore a late elaboration
of some early legend, and there is no point in taking it literally.
Part of the instructions are:
Exodus 16:16. . . . Gather of it . . . an omer for every man . . .
But how large is an omer? Even the editors of the Hexateuch
seem to have been worried by that, for they added a definition:
Exodus 16:36. Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah.
Of course, if one doesn't know how large an ephah is that doesn't
help. The trouble is that while strange units of measure arc al-
ways difficult to put into familiar terms, there is particular confusion
among the early Israelites.
Those of pre-Exilic times used Egyptian systems of measurement
and those of post-Exilic times used Babylonian systems, and it is
not always easy to tell them apart. The best estimate is that the
omer is a little less than half a peck in our common units or about
four liters in the metric system.
Amalek
After the crossing of the Red Sea, the Israelites headed for Mount
Sinai, and the situation now changes radically. A weakened Egypt
has been left behind and will not play a role as an adversary of the
Israelites for fully three centuries. In its place are new enemies, the
Semitic peoples who had, within the past century, settled down in
the areas surrounding Canaan, displacing the earlier inhabitants. These,
naturally, resisted the later influx of the Israelites.
The first of these mentioned as encountering the Israelites were
Amalekites:
Exodus 17:8. Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in
Rephidim.
The location of Rephidim is unknown. If Mount Sinai is located
in its traditional place near the southern apex of the Sinai Peninsula,
then Rephidim would have to be located somewhere in the southern
portion of the peninsula and it becomes a matter of wonder that the
Amalekites were to be found there. References elsewhere in the Bible
EXODUS 145
seem to place the Amalekites chiefly to the immediate south of Canaan
and to make them neighbors, or even a branch, of the Edomites. Tin's
was recognized by the Biblical writers themselves since the eponym,
Amalek, was described as a grandson of Esau/Edom (see page 103).
If the Israelites had reached the region south of Canaan on
their way to Mount Sinai that would be a point in favor of those
who would identify Mount Sinai with Mount Seir (sec page 133).
Or perhaps the story is displaced and the battle with Amalek in
Rephidim did not take place en route to Mount Sinai but long
afterward when the Israelites had left the mountain and were indeed
in the region south of Canaan.
Putting such questions to one side, the Israelites maintained a
strong tradition of continuing an undying enmity with the Amale-
kites; more so than with their other enemies. This may be because the
Amalekites were the first to make war upon the Israelites, when they
were least equipped to fight back, or because they did so in what
seemed to the Israelites to be a peculiarly unfair and frustrating
manner. Later, in the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses, in summarizing
the events following the Exodus, is quoted:
Deuteronomy 25: 17. Remember what Amalek did unto thee by
the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
Deuteronomy 25:18. How he met thee by the way, and smote
the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when
thou wast faint and weary . . .
The Amalekites seemed strong to the Israelites, and in a prophecy
described as having been uttered later in their progress toward Canaan,
by Balaam, a non-Israelite prophet, they are described grandilo-
quently:
Numbers 25:20. . . . Amalek was the first of the nations . . .
and this is usually taken to mean that they were the most powerful
of the nations of the region.
Perhaps they were, temporarily. Nomadic groups sometimes rise
to tremendous local power as a result of sudden raids upon unprepared
or decadent enemies and then vanish almost entirely after a com-
paratively short time. The outstanding example of this in history is
the career of the Mongols, who, in the thirteenth century aj>., nearly
conquered the world — then faded away.
146
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Amalekites could have anticipated the Mongolian feat only
in the smallest way and over a very restricted area for neither the
Egyptian nor the Babylonian records mention any people that can
be identified with the Amalekites. The Bible is our only source
concerning them.
The first pitched battle between the Amalekites and the Israelites
ended in complete victory for the latter. War between them con-
tinued, however, until two centuries later, when Saul, Israel's first
king, was to end the task, wiping out the Amalekite power and leav-
ing only remnants, about which little further is heard.
Joshua
In this first battle with the Amalekites, a new military leader makes
his appearance.
Exodus 17:9. And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men,
and go out, fight with Amalek . . .
The fact that Joshua is introduced without warning or identifica-
tion is one reason for thinking that this passage concerning the
Amalekites is misplaced and actually describes something that took
place near the end of the Exodus rather than near the beginning.
Later Joshua is mentioned as Oshea (Hoshea, in the Revised
Standard Version) and is identified as the son of Nun and as a member
of the tribe of Ephraim. Oshea ("salvation") was apparently his
original name and Moses changed it to one more in line with Yah-
vism:
Numbers 13:16. . . . And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun
Jehoshua.
Jehoshua, of which Joshua is a shortened form, means "Yahveh is
salvation."
Joshua remained Moses' military aide throughout the Exodus and
eventually succeeded Moses as leader of the Israelites generally. This
is the first indication of the military pre-eminence of the tribe of
Ephraim, a pre-eminence they were to hold throughout the tribal
period.
In later Old Testament times, it became more common to ab-
EXODUS 147
breviate Jehoshua as Jeshua. In Greek, the sound "sh" (not present in
the Greek alphabet) was replaced by "s" and the usual Greek name-
ending of "-s" was added so that Jeshua became Jesus.
Indeed, the New Testament (originally written in Greek) refers
to Joshua, Moses' general, as Jesus on two occasions— at least in the
King James Version. Thus, in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles,
when Stephen summarizes Old Testament history for his audience,
he refers to the tabernacle built under Moses' direction in the wilder-
ness:
Acts 7:45. Which also our fathers that came after brought in
[to Canaan] with Jesus . . .
In the Revised Standard Version, the name in Acts 7:45 is given
as Joshua. It is, of course, quite impossible for any version to change
the name of Jesus Christ back to the Hebrew Joshua. That name is
too fixed in human consciousness in its Greek form.
Cherubim
After the battle with the Amalekites, the Israelites reached Mount
Sinai. There Moses ascended the mountain to receive instructions
concerning various moral precepts (including the Ten Command-
ments) as well as the details of the structures to be built for the
worship of God, the clothing of the High Priest, various rites, and
so on.
Most sacred of the structures described was the "ark of the cove-
nant," a simple chest which was to contain the tablets on which the
Ten Commandments were inscribed, and over which the very pres-
ence of God was supposed to hover.
The ark was covered by a slab of gold called the mercy seat and—
Exodus 25:18. And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold . . .
in the two ends of the mercy seat.
Exodus 25:20. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings
on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces
shall look one to another . . .
148
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
(Actually, "cherubims" is a false plural. In Hebrew, the singular
is cherub, the plural cherubim. The Revised Standard Version sub-
stitutes the simple "cherubim.")
It is not really certain what the cherubim might be. During the
Assyrian period, the readers of the Biblical writings seem to have
been expected to know what was meant by the word without the
necessity of description or explanation. Thus, when Adam and Eve
were driven out of Eden, God is described as placing guardians about
the garden to prevent any return by man:
Genesis 3:24. . . . he placed at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way . . .
The verse simply says "Cherubims" without description or explana-
tion.
In connection with the arlc of the covenant, the wings are men-
tioned, but not in order to explain the appearance of the cherubim
for nothing else is described. The verses merely take pains to describe
the exact position of the wings, which the readers are otherwise
taken to be quite familiar with.
Centuries later, when Solomon built his Temple, he too made use
of cherubim in appropriately enlarged scale:
1 Kings 6:23. And . . . he made two cherubims of olive tree,
each ten cubits high.
1 Kings 6:24. And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub
and five cubits the other . . .
Again, the mere fact of wingedness is all that is mentioned.
It might be simple to think that cherubim were merely human
figures with wings, such as we usually visualize angels to be. Indeed,
in later Jewish legends, the cherubim figured as among the higher
orders of angels. (Moderns often apply the term to the winged
Cupids depicted in sweetly sentimental paintings with the result
that the term has come to be applied to children.)
On the other hand, the cherubim were guardians of objects
particularly holy and unapproachable, and they might well have been
fearsome in shape. The Assyrians, for instance, built at the gateways
of their palaces and temples monstrous creatures meant to guard kings
and gods. These were large representations of bulls, with the head
EXODUS
I49
of a man and wings of an eagle. Other types of composite creatures
are also familiar in the various mythologies. For instance, there are
the Greek sphinxes, which had the head of a woman, the wings of
an eagle, and the body of a lion.
There is nothing in the Bible that would eliminate the possibility
that it was winged bulls or winged lions, rather than winged men,
that crouched on the mercy seat.
In favor of the cherubim as composite creatures is the initial
vision in the Book of Ezekiel. Here, the prophet describes beings
(later referred to by him as cherubim) which are clearly composite.
Ezekiel 1:6. . . . every one had four faces, and every one had
jour wings.
Ezekiel 1:7. . . . and the sole of their feet was like the sole of
a calfs foot . . .
Ezekiel 1:10. . . . they four had the face of a man, and the face
of a lion, on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox
on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
The description, as we now have it, may be mangled and dis-
torted with the passing of the years, and there is much dispute
over the vision, but the cherubim as envisioned by the ancient
Israelites must have been more than simply a winged human figure.
The Urim and the Thummim
Even more puzzling than the cherubim are objects which enter into
the meticulous and detailed description of the garments of the High
Priest. The ephod, a kind of linen vest, was partly covered by a
breastplate bearing twelve jewels, one for each of the tribes, and
carrying upon it some sort of pocket:
Exodus 28:30. And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judg-
ment the Urim and the Thummim . . .
Nobody knows what the Urim and Thummim are. The words are
Hebrew, but translating them is of no help, for they mean "lights"
and "perfections" respectively.
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The most frequent guess is that the Urim and Thummim represent
a form of lot used for guidance in determining the will of God.
There might be one type of object indicating "yes" and another in-
dicating "no" and if yes-no questions are put, the answers are given
by the type of object which pops out of the pouch. It is even possible
that a blank object was also included, one which signified neither
yes nor no, indicating that divine guidance was refused.
The Bible certainly indicates that in early Israelite history, divine
guidance was expected to make itself manifest in some sort of chance
event. When King Saul was searching for the individual who had
committed a sin, he set the Israelites generally on one side (letting
them, perhaps, be represented by one of the lot-objects) and himself
and his son Jonathan on the other (letting them be represented by
the other lot-objects).
1 Samuel 14:41. Therefore Saul said unto the Lord God of
Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but
the people escaped.
However, in this and other cases, in the King James Version, where
casting lots is used to obtain divine guidance, the Urim and Thummim
are not specifically mentioned. And usually when the Urim and
Thummim are mentioned, the nature of their use is not described.
There is only one place where the two combine and that is in the
days before King Saul's final battle, when he sought for guidance and
found none:
1 Samuel 28:6. And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord
answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
The Revised Standard Version, however, accepts a version of
1 Samuel 14:41 which is fuller than that found in the King James and
which, indeed, makes matters explicit: "Therefore Saul said, 'O Lord
God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day?
If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord, God of
Israel, give Urim; but if this guilt is in thy people Israel, give
Thummim.' And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people
escaped."
This sort of guidance by lot passed out of use before the end of
the Old Testament period.
EXODUS
The Molten Calf
Moses' stay on Mount Sinai continued for so long that the Israelites
back in the camp began to fear that he might never return. This
encouraged those among them who felt uncomfortable with an in-
visible God. It is very common to desire some visible manifesta-
tion of the deity (nowadays as well as in ancient times) and the
pressure increased on Aaron to supply one.
Aaron asked for gold:
Exodus 32:4. And he . . . fashioned it with a graving tool,
after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy
gods, O Israel . . .
The choice of image is not as surprising as it might sound to modern
ears. Primitive man did not differentiate as carefully between men
and animals as we do. Before the rise of modern technology, wild
carnivores were a continuing terror and menace and it was by no
means certain that some animals, at least, might not be equal or
superior to man. Then, too, many peoples believed that the souls of
men might be reborn in animal form and that one particular species
of creature might have close ties of subtle kindred with their own
particular tribe. Others felt that since some animals were a necessary
source of food, a representation of these creatures had somehow to
be honored and propitiated.
Animal worship has, therefore, in one way or another, attracted
man throughout history. Nowadays, it is most common in India,
where among the Hindus cattle may not be killed, much less eaten,
despite the endemic starvation in the land. This practice gives rise to
the well-known phrase "sacred cow" for any belief rigidly held beyond
reason.
In ancient times, animal worship was most widespread in Egypt. As
an example, the city of Memphis paid special reverence to a sacred
bull, Hapi, (known to the Greeks as Apis). The bull was considered
a manifestation of the god Osiris and was given divine honors. Every-
thing about it was surrounded with ritual and its every action was
supposed to have great significance.
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
One might suppose that it was the Egyptian example that inspired
the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai, but that is not necessarily so.
To people who depend on cattle for meat, milk, and labor, the bull is
bound to be considered an important figure indeed, because on his
fertility all depended. Bulls would therefore play an important part in
the ritual of many groups of people. The early Cretans, during the
time when the Israelites were in Egypt, had long observed religious
rituals in which bulls played a key role. Two thousand years later,
the rites of Mithraism, a religion of Persian origin, also involved bulls.
The Assyrians had their winged bulls and the other peoples of the
Fertile Crescent also held bulls in varying degrees of reverence.
The Israelites, therefore, were not at all likely to see anything
strange in bull worship, and the "calf Aaron formed was undoubtedly
a young bull. Indeed, if the cherubim were, as I myself suspect, winged
bulls (see page 149), then the transition from an invisible presence
resting between the cherubim on the ark of the covenant, to the
cherubim themselves, could be an easy one. It might not even rep-
resent a full retreat from Yahvism since the golden figure might be
taken for Yahveh made manifest.
This section of the Book of Exodus is thought to be based on
legends that arose primarily among the Joseph tribes in northern
Canaan. It may be that in very early tribal history some special as-
sociation was made between the Joseph tribes and bulls. Thus, Moses,
shortly before his death, is described as blessing each of the tribes
separately, and when it is the turn of Joseph, part of the blessing is:
Deuteronomy 33:17. His glory is like the firstling of his buttock . . .
This shows up more specifically when, three centuries after the Ex-
odus, the kingdom of Solomon splits into two halves. Since Jerusalem,
which had been the center of worship under David and Solomon,
remained with the southern half, it seemed politically dangerous to the
king of the northern kingdom to allow such worship to continue.
This king was Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim, one of the Joseph
tribes, and he turned naturally, it would appear, to the bull, the ancient
animal symbol of his tribe.
1 Kings 12:28. Whereupon the king . . . made two calves of gold,
and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem:
behold thy gods, O Israel . . .
EXODUS
The use of the bull as a manifestation of God continued in the
northern kingdom to the end of its history. However, it never obtained
a foothold in the southern kingdom, and it is from the southern
kingdom that the history of later Judaism and Christianity descends.
While the Israelites were celebrating the image of the young bull,
Moses descended from the mountain. A brief civil war followed, with
the Levites ranging themselves on Moses' side. The ringleaders among
the bull-worshipers were slaughtered, and Moses' authority was re-
affirmed.
With that done, Moses continued with his task of instituting the
rituals of Yahvism, and the Book of Exodus ends with a careful ac-
counting of how the ark of the covenant, the clothing of the High
Priest, and other items are prepared in exact fulfillment of the instruc-
tions earlier given.
3. LEVITICUS
LEVITICUS • LEAVEN « UNCLEAN « THE DAY OF ATONEMENT • AZAZEL ■
DEVILS ' BLOOD • FAMILIAR SPIRITS • MOLECH * JUBILE
Leviticus
The third book of the Bible begins:
Leviticus 1:1. And the Lord called unto Moses . . .
The first word in Hebrew is Vayikrah ("And he called") and that is
the Hebrew title of the book.
The book is virtually one long section of the P document, given
over to ritualistic detail, so that it is easily the dullest book in the Bible
to the casual reader.
Its instructions are of primary interest to the priesthood, who are
drawn from among the descendants of Aaron, who was himself of the
tribe of Levi. Aaron and his descendants are therefore Levites, and the
word became synonymous with "priest."
The translators of the Septuagint, mindful of the book's involve-
ment with the priesthood, called it "Levitikon" ("the Levitical book")
and we make use of the Latin equivalent, "Leviticus."
Leaven
One of the instructions concerning the ritual of sacrifice ordains
the avoidance of the use of leaven in objects offered to God:
Leviticus 2:11. No meat offering which ye shall bring unto the
Lord, shall be made with leaven . . .
LEVITICUS 155
Originally, the flour used in making bread was simply baked into
flat, hard cakes that had the virtue of remaining fit to eat for long
periods of time.
Dough which had, however, been left standing, would sometimes
pick up microorganisms from the air and begin to ferment. The
process of fermentation produced carbon dioxide which formed bub-
bles in the thick dough and puffed it up. Bread made from such fer-
mented dough was light and fluffy. It would not keep as well as
bread made from unfermented dough, but would tend to get dry and
moldy, but it was still pleasant to eat when fresh.
A key step in bread manufacture must have taken place (in pre-
historic times) when it was discovered that there was no need to
wait for dough to ferment spontaneously. A small piece of already
fermented dough would hasten the fermentation of large batches of
fresh dough. This became proverbial, and the Apostle Paul, for in-
stance, in speaking of the pervasive influence of evil says:
1 Corinthians 5:6. . . . Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth
the whole lump?
The word "leaven" (from a Latin word meaning "to raise") is a
translation of the Hebrew word hametz, meaning "to be sour," some-
thing that is often characteristic of fermenting material. Our own
equivalent word, "yeast," is traced back to a Sanskrit word meaning
"to boil," which is a reference to the bubbles of carbon dioxide
formed.
To the Israelites, fermentation seemed a form of corruption, and
however pleasant leavened bread might be to eat, there was still the
stigma of corruption and impurity about it. Bread to be offered on
the altar to God must be pure and uncorrupt and must, therefore, be
unleavened.
On Passover, because of the holiness of the season, only unleavened
bread might be eaten and no trace of leaven must be found anywhere
in the house. Indeed, a synonym for Passover is "the feast of un-
leavened bread."
Exodus 23:15. Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread . . .
in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou earnest out
from Egypt . . .
i 5 6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples took place at the time
of Passover. The bread broken by Jesus was therefore unleavened,
and the wafer used in the Catholic Mass, in commemoration of that
event, is unleavened too.
Undoubtedly the use of unleavened bread in ritual is extremely
ancient, dating back to long before the Exodus. The priestly editors of
the Hexateuch had to find some circumstance in the flight from Egypt
that made the eating of unleavened bread particularly appropriate
as a way of commemorating the Exodus. They found this in the haste
in which the Israelites left; a haste so great that the relatively slow
process of fermentation could not be waited for:
Exodus 12:33. And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people,
that they might send them out of the land in haste . . .
Unclean
Much of Leviticus deals with the clean and unclean:
Leviticus 5:2. ... if a soul touch any unclean thing . , .
To us, clean and unclean tends to be a hygienic matter. Something
is unclean if it is dirty, or has an offensive smell, or is laden with
dangerous bacteria. The Biblical use of the term involves religious
ritual.
Something is clean if it may be offered as a sacrifice to God, or if
it may stand in the presence of God. Something that may not be
offered as a sacrifice is unclean. People who, because of some deformity
or disease, or because they have touched an unclean thing or per-
formed a forbidden act, are themselves unclean and cannot approach
the altar until the uncleanness has been removed.
In Leviticus, the items of food that are clean and may be eaten, and
those that are unclean and may not be eaten, are listed in detail.
For instance:
Leviticus 11:3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted,
and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
Leviticus 11:7. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be
clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean unto you.
LEVITICUS 157
The basis on which animals are divided into clean and unclean is
not known. Some say it is a matter of pragmatic rules of hygiene,
some bring in primitive notions of totemism, some find in it a desire
to forbid practices common to surrounding idolatry. Perhaps the chief
thing in the mind of the priesthood that prepared the book of Leviticus
was to work out a code of behavior that would serve to keep the Jews
distinct and their religion intact from the attractions of surrounding
cultures.
If so, the priesthood succeeded, for these sections of Leviticus were
the basis of the dietary laws which became so important to the post-
Exilic Jews. The dietary laws were so intricate and compulsive as to
prevent pious Jews from eating with non-Jews, since the food prepared
by non-Jews could never meet the standards of ceremonial cleanness.
And while many different foods were considered unclean, swine
somehow represented the epitome of uncleanness— perhaps because
it was so common a part of the diet of the surrounding Gentiles that
its absence in the Jewish dietary was particularly conspicuous.
The disputes recorded in the New Testament over the matter of
cleanness, between Jesus and his followers on the one hand and the
orthodox Jews on the other, must be understood only in the ritualistic
sense, of course, never in the hygienic.
The Day of Atonement
Leviticus is concerned with how to cancel out the consequences of
sin, too, as well as of uncleanness. To sin— that is, to disobey the
commandments of God, as Adam and Eve did in eating the fruit of
the tree (the "original sin")— involves separation from God. To cancel
sin according to a prescribed ritual is to restore one's self to the presence
of God, to make one's self once more "at one" with God. The sinner
must "atone" therefore, or make "atonement."
The High Priest can atone for the entire nation by means of
appropriate rituals, and this is done on a particular day:
Leviticus 23:27. . . . on the tenth day of this seventh month
there shall be a day of atonement . . . and ye shall afflict your
souls . . .
158
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
"Day of atonement" is a translation of the Hebrew Yom Kippur.
Yom Kippur is now the holiest day of the Jewish calendar and a strict
day-long fast is involved ("ye shall afflict your souls"). Nevertheless,
there is no record of the holiday having been observed until post-
Exilic times.
Azazel
Yet if the Day of Atonement is itself a post-Exilic development,
some of the rites associated with it must be old indeed. As part of the
ritual two goats must be selected:
Leviticus 16:8. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats,
one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
The goat upon whom the Lord's lot fell (and here one might ex-
pect the Urim and Thummim would be used) would be sacrificed to
the Lord as atonement for the sins of the nation. The other would
be led off into the wilderness bearing with it all those sins, so that
punishment might befall it rather than the nation of Israel and its
people. Because the second goat escapes into the wilderness and is
not sacrificed, the King James Version refers to it as a "scapegoat"
("escaped goat"). It is for this reason that the word has come to be
applied to any person or object who, himself innocent, suffers
vicariously for the deeds of another.
However, the Hebrew word that is translated as "scapegoat" in the
King James Version is actually Azazel. The Revised Standard Version
does not translate the word but makes the verse read: "And Aaron
shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other
lot for Azazel."
Azazel is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible save for this one
chapter, but it seems quite likely that it is the name of a demon
thought of as dwelling in the wilderness. It might be pictured as an
evil spirit that is the source of sin. In sending the second goat into
the wilderness, the sins it carries could be viewed as returning to their
source.
Later legends elaborated on Azazel. He was supposed to be one of
the fallen angels, exiled from Heaven because he would not accept
LEVITICUS 159
newly created man as superior. An alternative suggestion involves a
rather obscure passage in the Book of Genesis:
Genesis 6:2. . . . the sons of God saw the daughters of men
that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they
chose.
Genesis 6:4. .. . and they bare children to them, the same became
mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
This remnant of primitive mythology, lingering on in the Bible,
was interpreted literally by the later Jews. They thought the angels,
deliberately rebelling against God, chose to corrupt themselves with
mankind out of lust for women and that this act helped bring on the
Flood. Some versions of this legend made Azazel the chief of these
angels.
Devils
Another relic of the past is contained in the next chapter, which
commands centralized worship under the guidance of the priesthood,
and forbids older, more independent rites:
Leviticus 17:7. And they shall no more offer their sacrifice unto
devils . . .
The word "devil" is from the Greek diabolos, which means
"slanderer." The name applies to evil spirits that slander God in
men's ears, urging them on to disobedience and sin. They can also be
viewed as slandering human beings to God, as Satan, in the Book of
Job, is pictured as slandering Job.
In this particular verse, "devils" is a translation of the Hebrew
word sairrim, which, literally, means "wild goats." There is a wide-
spread tendency to think of goats as lustful animals personifying the
wild, fructifying force of nature. The Greeks visualized the woods to
be full of nature spirits in the shape of men with the homs, tail, and
hindquarters of goats, always in a state of sexual heat. They called
them "satyrs" and the word has entered the modem psychiatric
vocabulary to represent men suffering from insatiable sexual desires.
i6o
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
To the Yahvists, with their strait-laced sexual mores, such fertility
gods were nothing more than evil spirits.
The Revised Standard Version recognizes the specific similarity of
the satyrs to the sairrim and has Leviticus 17:7 read: "So they shall
no more slay their sacrifices for satyrs . . ."
The popular conception of Satan today, with his homs, tail, and
cloven hoof, shows that he is still pictured as a satyr.
Blood
The earing of blood is strongly forbidden:
Leviticus 17:10. ... 7 will even set my face against that soul
that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 17:11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood . . .
Blood is considered to contain the principle of life, as is reason-
able, seeing that long-continued bleeding will kill a man who seems
otherwise unharmed. Life, as the creation of God, cannot be ap-
propriated by man, and man cannot, therefore, eat blood.
This prohibition was pronounced before the revelation at Sinai, for
even Noah, after the Flood, is cited as having received such instruc-
tions. God tells Noah what he may eat:
Genesis 9:3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for
you . . .
Genesis 9:4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat.
This was interpreted by the later Jews as meaning that even those
who did not receive the revelation at Sinai were still required to
refrain from eating blood.
Thus, when a controversy arose in the early Christian church as
to whether Gentile converts were required to accept the dietary regu-
lations of the Mosaic law, the decision was that they were not so
required. Nevertheless, their freedom was not absolute, for the con-
servative leaders of the church at Jerusalem insisted:
Acts 15:20. . . . that we write unto them that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,
and from blood.
LEVITICUS
Familiar Spirits
There are prohibitions of all sorts in the Book of Leviticus. There
are lists of foods that one might not eat, and lists of sexual practices
that one must not tolerate. Unethical behavior of various sorts are
forbidden. In addition, some practices are forbidden by the Mosaic
law which seem to be harmless enough. Thus:
Exodus 23:19. . . . Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's
milk.
and:
Leviticus 19:27. Ye shall not round the corners of your heads,
neither shalt thou mar the comers of thy beard.
Presumably, this was designed to warn against practices that were
particularly associated with heathens and idolatry. The Egyptian
priesthood, for instance, shaved the hair from head and face.
Later Jews made elaborate deductions from such verses. The pro-
hibition against boiling meat in milk, for instance, was built up into
complicated avoidance of eating meat and dairy dishes at the same
meal, or even preparing them or serving them, at different times,
in the same utensils.
Another prohibition is:
Leviticus 19:31. Regard not them that have familiar spirits, nei-
ther seek after wizards . . .
A wizard is a "wise man," presumably one who knows how to
bend supernatural forces to his will. He would be one who could
govern spirits, and make servants of them. A "familiar spirit" is a
"servant-spirit," from the Latin word famulus, meaning "servant."
The Bible does not say that such spirits do not exist, or that
wizards do not have the power to which they pretend. The ob-
jections rests on the fact that the rites practiced by wizards are
idolatrous.
The feminine version of the word "wizard" is "witch" and the
Bible judges them harshly in one of the shortest and most influ-
ential of the Biblical verses:
162
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Exodus 22:18. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Many unnecessary persecutions and cruelties have been visited on
women (especially old women) as a result of this verse.
(It must be remembered, however, that ancient pagan practices
endured, under cover, throughout the centuries of Christian Europe.
Fighting witchcraft was sometimes Christianity's way of fighting an
older and competing religion.)
Molech
The Book of Leviticus inveighed particularly against one particular
form of idolatry.
To be sure, the Bible denounces all forms of idolatry; all forms
of worship in which divine beings were represented in the form
of some tangible likeness of a man, an animal, or a composite crea-
ture. It is possible to argue that the idol is not the god worshiped
but only a visible representation of an invisible, divine essence, but
even if this were so, the tendency of the ordinary worshiper would
be to consider the visible object as the god.
The Yahvists thought this danger to be so great that increasingly,
through Biblical times, they set their face against any image at all
and grew more and more firm on that subject. —And one particular
idol roused them to enormous rage.
Leviticus 20:2. . . . Whosoever he be of the children of Israel,
or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his
seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death . . .
Molech is, in this case, almost certainly a version of melech
("king"). It is a way of referring to the god of the people, similar
to "the lord." The Biblical writers grew increasingly unable, as the
centuries passed, to speak of idols as kings or lords and avoided
this by pronouncing the word bosheth ("shame") whenever they
came to such a reference to an idol. When diacritical marks (see
page 135) were added to the words, melech received the marks for
bosheth. In that way, melech became Molech.
The worship of Molech involved the sacrifice of children. Primi-
tive men felt that the dearer and more loved the object sacrificed
to a god, the more impressed the god would be and the more apt
LEVITICUS 163
to answer the prayer. In times of dire distress, then, children would
be sacrificed, even perhaps the child of the king.
In the later days of the Israelite kingdoms, when affairs were fre-
quently desperate, such child sacrifice was performed. One sugges-
tion is that living children were burnt to death in a fire built within
the brazen idol, but it may be that the children were slain first and
then sacrificed in some more ordinary fashion.
One of the later kings of Judah, Ahaz, sacrificed his son in this
fashion:
2 Kings 16:3. Bui he [Ahaz] . . . made his son to pass through
the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen . . .
Undoubtedly, many men of the period applied the word melech
to Yahveh, and assumed themselves to be sacrificing to God in an
approved manner as Abraham was ready to do in sacrificing Isaac.
Of course, those who disapproved of human sacrifice must have been
quick to point out that the sacrifice of Isaac was prevented. Even
so, the prophets had to go to special pains to state, specifically,
that Yahveh did not approve. The verses in Leviticus were made
firm and strong and Jeremiah, in rehearsing the complaints of God
against the Jews, has Him say:
Jeremiah 7:31. And they . . . bum their sons and their daugh-
ters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it
into my heart.
JubUe
A special festival is mentioned in Leviticus, which seems to have
been a priestly ideal that was never put thoroughly into practice:
Leviticus 25:8. And thou shalt number . . . seven times seven
years . . .
Leviticus 25:9. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile
to sound ... in the day of atonement . . .
Leviticus 25:10. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year . . .
The land was to remain fallow during the year; land which had
been leased out was to be restored to the original owners; slaves
were to be freed. In a way, it was a method of starting things fresh
164
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
every half century so as to prevent the accumulation of economic
injustice. It was a beautiful idea, but impractical.
Nevertheless, the word "jubile" (usually spelled "jubilee" and de-
rived from the Hebrew word for trumpet) has come to represent
a fiftieth anniversary.
About 100 b.c, a book was written by some unnamed Jew or
Jews purporting to detail the primitive history of humanity. It mod-
eled itself on Genesis but added a great many legendary details
that had been built up since Genesis had reached its final form some
three centuries before. It includes much detail concerning angels,
for instance, and traces late customs back to the earliest times. Be-
cause it gives the history in a series of chapters, each dealing with a
fifty-year period, it is called the "Book of Jubilees."
4. NUMBERS
NUMBERS * THE SUM OF THE CONGREGATION • THE ETHIOPIAN WOMAN •
CALEB * ZIN * KADESH • KORAH, DATHAN, AND ABIRAM • THE PIT • MOUNT
HOR • THE SERPENT OF BRASS • SIHON • CHEMOSH • HESHBON ■ B AS HAN •
BALAAM • BAAL * PISCAH • UNICORN • THE DAUGHTERS OF MOAB • CILEAD
Numbers
The fourth book of the Bible begins:
Numbers 1:1. And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilder-
ness . . .
The Hebrew name is taken from that first verse for it is "Bemidbar"
meaning "in the wilderness."
The translators of the Septuagint were, however, impressed by the
fact that the book includes the results of two censuses of the fighting
men of the Israelite tribes. They therefore named the book "Arithmoi"
("Numbers"). The name of this book, unlike those of the first three,
is translated into English, and is called "Numbers."
The Sum of the Congregation
The first census is recorded at the very start of the book:
Numbers 1:2. Take ye the sum of all the congregation . . .
Numbers 1:3. From twenty years old and upward, aU that are
able to go forth to war . . .
The second census was carried out forty years afterward, shortly
before the entry into Canaan:
Numbers 26:2. Take the sum of all the congregation . . . from
twenty years old and upward . . . all that are able to go to war . . .
i66
ASIMOV'S GUIDE
TO THE BIBLE
The figures
presented by the Book of Numbers
are as follows:
Tribe
First Census
Second Census
Reuben
46,500
43-73°
Simeon
59,300
22,200
Gad
45- 6 5°
40,500
Judah
74,600
76,500
Issachar
54,400
64,300
Zebulun
57,400
60,500
Ephraim
40,500
32,500
Manasseh
32,200
52,700
Benjamin
35,400
45,600
Dan
62,700
64,400
Asher
41,500
53-4°°
Naphtali
53-4°°
45,400
Total
603,550
601,730
These are only the adult males, of course. If one counts in the
women and children and the "mixed-multitude" or half-breed hang-
ers-on to whom the Bible occasionally refers, one gets the picture
of some two million people wandering about the Sinai Peninsula.
This seems implausibly large, considering this is more than the num-
ber of Israelites in the Davidic kingdom at its height. One suspects
that the numbers represent a later tradition of questionable accuracy.
Regardless of the accuracy of the figures, however, two points can
be made which reflect later history. First, the most populous tribes
were pictured as Judah and Joseph. (If Ephraim and Manasseh are
taken together, the Joseph tribes have 72,700 in the first census, al-
most the figure for Judah; and 85,200 in the second census, sur-
passing the figure for Judah.) This seems to reflect the situation
four centuries later when the Davidic kingdom had split in two,
with the Joseph tribes dominating the northern kingdom and Judah
the southern.
Secondly, the most startling change in numbers, is that of Simeon,
which, between the first and second census, loses more than three
fifths of its numbers. No other tribe is pictured as suffering any-
where near such losses and there is nothing in the actual events
of Numbers to account for it. This, apparently, is an indication
that at the time of the conquest of Canaan, Simeon was already
NUMBERS 167
considerably weakened, and this helps account for the fact that it
played no great role in later Israelite history. This may be the result
of a disastrous early attack on Shechem by Simeon and Levi, de-
scribed in Genesis (see page 100) and made to appear there as though
it were a victory of patriarchal times.
The tribe of Levi was not numbered with the other tribes for
they were not to be among the warriors. Their task was to perform
the priestly functions. Therefore, all the males were counted and
not merely those above twenty years. The figure in the first census
came to 22,273 anc ^ ' n sec ond to 23,000. Levi is thus made to
seem smaller than any of the other tribes and this too may be a
reflection of the attack on Shechem.
The Ethiopian Woman
The Israelites set out on their march toward Canaan and along
the way, Moses had to contend with various types of disaffection.
Even within his own family there was dissension, for his sister, Mir-
iam, and his brother, Aaron, entered into an intrigue against him:
Numbers 12:1. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses be-
cause of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married . . .
From this verse one might picture, as many people do, a Negro
woman as Moses' wife, since "Ethiopian" is used frequently nowadays
as a euphemistic synonym for "Negro." However, there is no reason
to think that a Negro woman was involved, or even an Ethiopian
woman in the modem sense. The Hebrew word here translated as
"Ethiopian" is "Cushi" and in the Revised Standard Version, Moses'
wife is described as "the Cushite woman."
As I explained earlier (see page 19), a Cushite might indeed
be an Ethiopian. According to legend, Moses served as an Egyptian
general in his youth and led his troops in a victorious campaign
in Ethiopia and might, conceivably, have picked up a wife or con-
cubine there. However, there is no Biblical evidence of this and the
legend of Moses' Ethiopian adventures is probably based on nothing
stronger than this single verse.
Against this view is the fact that the Cushites are also Arabian
peoples (see page 20).
i68
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Only one woman is specifically mentioned in the Bible as being
married to Moses. Moses' marriage took place during his flight into
Midian, in Arabia, and his stay at the home of a desert priest (see
page 129):
Exodus 2:21. And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and
he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
Zipporah may very well have been the Cushite woman referred
to in Numbers 12:1. She could be resented by Miriam out of gen-
eralized intrafamilial jealousy, or, specifically, because she was a "Cush-
ite woman"; that is, a Midianite and a foreigner, and not an Is-
raelite.
In any case, Moses faced down his brother and sister and won
out over dissent as he did on numerous other occasions in the course
of the Exodus.
Caleb
Having reached the wilderness of Paran (see page 87) south of
Canaan, Moses took the cautious step of sending spies into the land
in order to observe the situation. Their reports might then serve as
a ground for a rational distribution of forces and an efficient plan
of campaign.
Twelve spies were selected, one from each tribe, but of these only
two were of importance. One was Oshea of Ephraim, whom Moses
renamed Jehoshua, or Joshua (see page 146). The other was a Ju-
dean:
Numbers 13:6. Of the tribe of fudah, Caleb the son of Jephun-
neh.
The career of Caleb is, in many respects, parallel to that of Joshua.
Where Joshua was a hero of legends originating with the northern
tribes, Caleb was the analogous hero of the southern ones.
In this verse, Caleb is treated as though he were simply a Judean,
but in the Book of Joshua he is referred to more fully:
Joshua 14:6. . . . Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite . . .
NUMBERS 169
A Kenezite or ("Kenizzite," as in the Revised Standard Version)
is a descendant of Kenaz, who is listed in Genesis as a son of
Eliphaz, the first-born of Esau. The Kenizzites, therefore, are an Edom-
ite clan, who must have been adopted into the Judean tribe. Tin's
is not the only indication that the tribe of Judah contained non-
Israelite elements. In Chapter 38 of Genesis, Judah is described as
making an alien marriage:
Genesis 38:2. And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Ca-
naanite . . . and he took her . . .
This may be an indication that the tribe of Judah, located in
southern Canaan, was at least partly Canaanite and Edomite in na-
ture. It is even possible that in the early tribal period, Judah was
not felt to be part of Israel, for in certain key portions of the
book, Judah is conspicuously ignored. Even in Davidic times, when
Judah was not only an integral part of Israel but supplied it with
a ruling dynasty, there was a continuing lack of sympathy between
it and the northern tribes. This was exacerbated into downright en-
mity and ended finally in civil war and schism.
Zin
From Paran, the spies traveled northward:
Numbers 13:21. So they went up, and searched the land from
the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob . . .
Numbers 13:22. And they . . . came unto Hebron; where . . .
the children of Anak were. (Now Hebron was built seven years
before Zoan in Egypt.)
Numbers 13:23. And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and
cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, . . .
and they brought of the pomegranates and of the figs.
Verse 21 indicates the thoroughness of the search for "the wilder-
ness of Zin" is taken to be the northern edge of Paran, and therefore
the desert area just south of Becrsheba, while Rehob (exact location
unknown) is a site in the extreme north of Canaan. The effect
is that of saying that the United States has been searched "from
Maine to California."
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
This may be hyperbole and the chief attention was concentrated
on Hebron, the southernmost of the large, well-fortified cities of Ca-
naan. It was formidable enough to allow the metaphoric description
of its inhabitants as giants— a description later accepted literally (see
Page 73).
The parenthetical phrase makes Hebron's legendary ancientness
specific by stating it to be seven yean older than Zoan. Zoan is the
Semitic name for the town called Tanis by the Greeks. It was the
capital of the Hyksos kingdom and is used as a comparison because
it was the nearest to Canaan of the notable cities of Egypt and
therefore, perhaps, the best known.
The ancientness of Egyptian civilization was the proud boast of
Egypt and was acknowledged with awe by its neighbors. There was
no better way of testifying to the extreme age of a city than by
claiming it to be older than an Egyptian city.
While Canaan would not seem an absolute garden spot to some-
one from California or the Nile, it would certainly seem so to tribes
invading from the desert. Well-watered oases such as that in which
Hebron was situated would seem particularly fertile and would justify
the well-known description of Canaan used in several places in the
early books of the Bible. Thus, in God's first interview with Moses,
he promises to bring the Israelites out of Egypt:
Exodus 3:8. .. . unto a good land and a large, unto a land
flowing with milk and honey . . .
The produce of Eshcol, a district of orchards near Hebron, was
brought back to the waiting Israelite host as proof that the de-
scription was justified.
Kadesh
The report of the spies was brought back to the place where
the Israelites had established a semipermanent station:
Numbers 13:26. And they went and came to . . . the children
of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran to Kadesh . . .
Kadesh means "holy" and probably received its name because it
had some sacred associations for the pre-Israelite inhabitants of the
NUMBERS 171
Kadesh-barnea
area. It is identified with a place called Ain Kadis today, located
about fifty miles south of Hebron and in the northeastern corner
of the Sinai Peninsula.
Despite the fertility of the Hebron area, the spies returned with
an utterly pessimistic majority report. They felt the Canaanite cities
were entirely too strong to be taken by assault and predicted disaster
for any invasion attempt. Only Joshua and Caleb presented a minority
report in favor of an immediate assault and they were nearly stoned
as a result.
The disheartened Israelites considered a return to Egypt but Moses
held them in place and for the next thirty-eight years, Kadesh remained
the Israelite capital, while Moses and Joshua organized their forces for
the task that lay ahead.
Korah, Dathan, and Abiratn
The stay at Kadesh was bound to be a difficult one for Moses. Year
after year of inactivity, with Canaan at hand but inaccessible, seemed
to make a mockery of the Exodus and to cast doubt upon Moses'
capacity as a leader. Serious disaffection appeared:
iy2 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Numbers 16:1. Now Korah, the son of Izhar . . . and Dathan
and Abiram . . . sons of Reuben took men:
# • • •
Numbers 16:3. And they gathered themselves together against
Moses and against Aaron . . .
Apparently, this chapter combines into one account what were ac-
tually two separate rebellions against Moses, one by Korah, and one
by the Reubenites.
The rebellion by Korah was specifically a religious schism. Moses
and Aaron were the sons of Amram, while Korah was the son of
Amram's younger brother, Izhar (see page 136). Since Moses assigned
the lion's share of the priestly duties to Aaron and the Amramites,
Korah felt unjustly discriminated against.
Korah's rebellion was put down, but perhaps not without a com-
promise being reached. At least Numbers points out later that, despite
the destruction of Korah and his band:
Numbers 26:11. Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not.
In fact, the Korahites survived to become a hereditary guild of Temple
musicians, a concession they might have received in the case of a
Levite civil war, the memory of which forms the basis of the sixteenth
chapter of Numbers.
The Reubenite rebellion of Dathan and Abiram seems to have been
purely political. At some early point in tribal history, Reuben must
have held the leadership because the tradition is firm that Reuben is
the oldest son of Israel. In the course of the Exodus, the Reubenites
must have witnessed with dismay the shift in the religious leadership
to the tribe of Levi (Moses and Aaron) and the military leadership
to the tribe of Ephraim (Joshua). The tale of Dathan and Abiram
must be based on the memory of some attempt of Reuben to regain
its leadership and this attempt may also echo in the cryptic verse in
Genesis which describes Reuben as committing incest with his father's
concubine (see page 102).
The Reubenite rebellion was also crushed and never again in Is-
raelite history did the tribe of Reuben play a significant role.
NUMBERS
The Pit
The particular punishment of the rebellious Reubenites, according
to the Biblical description, was that of being swallowed alive by the
earth:
Numbers 16:32. And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed
them up . . .
Numbers 16:33. They . . . went down alive into the pit . . .
The Hebrew word, here translated as "the pit" is Sheol, and in
the Revised Standard Version, Sheol is left untranslated. Sheol was
visualized by the early Israelites as an underground world to which
the souls of the dead departed. It was thought of at first as a dim place
where there was no particular torture, but where there was an absence
of joy. Nor was there any distinction between good and evil; all human
beings went there upon death except those few who, like Enoch and
Elijah, were taken alive to Heaven.
The picture is like that of other such places imagined by early men.
The Creeks had such a world ruled by a god, Hades, and in the
early Nordic myths there was such a world ruled by a goddess, Hel.
Sheol is therefore replaced by "Hell" in some places in the Bible, and
in the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek, it was
translated as "Hades."
The moralization of Sheol, its conversion into a place of torture
for the wicked, while the good go elsewhere, came later in history,
toward the end of Old Testament times.
Mount Hor
The old generation was passing away, and few remained of those
who were adults at the time of the Exodus. Miriam, Moses* sister, died
at Kadesh, for instance.
The time came when some move had to be made. A direct assault
from the south against Hebron seemed to be still out of the question
and the alternative was to flank Hebron by traveling northeastward.
Canaan could then be attacked from the more vulnerable east.
174
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In order to travel directly northeastward, however, the territory of
Edom would have had to be traversed. The Edomites were recognized
as a Hebrew people related to the Israelites and the use of force against
them was therefore ruled out. Permission was requested by Moses to
pass through their territory peacefully, but this was refused. In later
yean, this refusal was used as a grievance against Edom and as a cause
for enmity.
It was therefore necessary to outflank Edom's fortified areas, so the
Israelites traveled southeastward:
Numbers 20:22. And the children of Israel . . . journeyed from
Kadesh, and came unto Mount Hor.
Mount Hor is often identified with the highest peak in the Seir
mountain range (see page 96). Aaron died at this time and was
buried on Mount Hor and the peak which is now identified with it is
called Jebel Harun ("Mount Aaron") in Arabic.
Some statistics concerning Aaron's death are given later:
Numbers 33:38. And Aaron . . . died there, in the fortieth year
after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt.
Numbers 33:39. And Aaron was an hundred and twenty and
three years old . . .
If the Exodus took place in 1211 B.C., then the death of Aaron
took place in 1171 b.c. That must also have been the year of the death
of Moses and of the entry into Canaan, for events now follow quickly
although the Bible continues to interrupt those events with long
speeches by Moses and others.
If we accept Aaron's age at his death, he must have been born in
1294 b.c, while Moses, who was three years younger, was born in
1291 b.c. (This last is an interesting date for it virtually coincides with
the beginning of the reign of Rameses II, the Pharaoh of the Oppres-
sion; see page 125.)
The Serpent of Brass
When the period of mourning for Aaron was done, the Israelites
continued their outflanking march, by traveling southward to the tip
of the Gulf of Aqaba, around Edomite territory and then north again.
NUMBERS 175
Here there occurs an event which was to have continuing traditions
later.
A plague of serpents harassed the Israelites, the Bible explains:
Numbers 21:9. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it
upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any
man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
This is an example of "sympathetic magic," the belief that like
effects like, which is common among primitive people. (The most fa-
miliar example we have today is the voodoo belief that sticking pins
in images will bring pain and sickness to the person represented by the
image.) The use of the serpent, as described in this verse, is rather
similar to the principles of homeopathic medicine, which follows the
"hair of the dog that bit you" sort of reasoning.
The serpent is a particularly important animal in religious ritual,
whether for good or evil. The fact that a serpent moves in so quiet
and hidden a fashion and strikes so suddenly and so unexpectedly
with so poisoned a fang, makes it an obvious representation of cunning
and evil. It is such a representation of cunning evil in the story of the
garden of Eden, for instance:
Genesis 3:1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of
the field . . .
Something that is dangerous and evil is to be feared, and something
that is feared had better be treated well and propitiated, so that ser-
pents could be worshiped even while dreaded.
Then, too, the serpent is looked upon as symbolizing immortality
because of its ability to shed its skin. Any primitive man, observing
the process by which a serpent sheds an old, dull skin and emerges in
a new, brightly colored one, might be excused if he assumed the ser-
pent had undergone a process of rejuvenation. (We ourselves also
shed our skin but we do so continuously, and little by little, here
and there, so that the process is quite unnoticeable.)
Thus, in the Gilgamesh legend (see page 40), when the hero finally
gains the plant that brought immortality, he has it stolen from him by
a serpent, which then becomes immortal. (In the garden of Eden, it
is the serpent who steals immortality from Adam and Eve, although
it is not itself made immortal as a result, but is punished.)
The immortal serpent, victor over death, can thus be considered the
176
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
particular associate of the medical profession, which labors to stave
off, if not to conquer, death. Serpents were sacred to Asklepios, the
Greek god of medicine, and even today the Medical Corps of the
U. S. Army has as its insignia the caduceus, a staff about which two
serpents are encircled.
In later Israelite history, however, as Yahvism grew stronger and
more uncompromising, the serpent of brass, worshiped by the people,
came under sharper and sharper disapproval. The fact of the associa-
tion with Moses did not save it. The end came in the reign of Hez-
ekiah, king of Judah, some five centuries after the Exodus:
2 Kings 18:4. He [Hezekiah] . . . brake in pieces the brasen
serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of
Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
Nehushtan is usually translated as "a piece of brass." The impres-
sion one gets from the final clause of this verse, as given in the King
James Version, is that when Hezekiah destroyed the serpent, he
countered the shock of the populace by contemptuously labeling the
object as of no ritual value at all but as nothing more than a piece
of brass.
However, Nehushtan is related not only to the Hebrew word for
"brass" but also to the word for "serpent." Nehushtan may have been
the name of the object without any connotation of contempt. Indeed,
the Revised Standard Version translates the final clause of 2 Kings 18:4
as "it was called Nehushtan," a matter-of-fact statement of information
without interpretation.
Sihon
Even the circling of Edom did not remove all difficulties. East of
Canaan lay the two kingdoms of Moab and Ammon. Of these two,
Moab was the more southerly, occupying the eastern shores of the
Dead Sea, while Ammon, to the north, lay east of the Jordan River.
Both were recognized by the Israelites to be Hebrew peoples, de-
scendants of Terah by way of Lot and therefore (according to the
interpretation of the Biblical writers), like Edom, immune to attack.
Both Moab and Ammon had, presumably, established themselves at
the borders of Canaan a century and a half before, in the time of
Ikhnaton (see page 124).
'77 T7. — I \ !
V? HITTITE EMPIRE V' .
tt'Dmaais
cthe Qrbat Sea
( Mediterranean Sea)
WATERS OF
Mf ROM- _
ff .Wary.:
•wj*^! ■ • C £CXINN£RETM
BASH A N
AskttJVtk
t.. I^JFT 7 ^^^
„>nm>
ymshkn AMMON
'~!?Km.NSK>/'\
1 7 *
Moab and Ammon
178 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Just before the Israelites had arrived, however, the kingdoms— Moab
in particular— had had to withstand the shock of another onslaught.
Numbers 2:26. . . . Sihon the king of the Amorites . . . had
fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out
of his hand, even unto Amon.
The Amorites had, some seven centuries before, been a powerful
people and had ruled most of the Fertile Crescent (see page 50).
They had fallen before the onslaughts of the Hittites and of Imperial
Egypt and were now either in subjection or, in places, maintained
themselves precariously in patchwork principalities. At the time of the
Exodus, there were, presumably, Amorite principalities in Canaan, and
Sihon may have been the ruler of one. His attack against the Moabites
may have represented the last successful action of the Canaanites
against the remorseless pressure of the various Hebrew tribes.
Before Sihon 's onslaught, Moab controlled the territory up to the
Jabbok River. This is described elsewhere in this chapter as the south-
em boundary of Ammon and Sihon, therefore, conquered the stretch
of land from the Jabbok down to the Amon.
The Amon, by the way, is a small river, flowing westward into the
Dead Sea, reaching that body of water just about midway along its
eastern shore. In later Biblical history it remained the northern bound-
ary of Moab. Its modem name is Wadi Mojib, "Mojib" being a clear
echo of "Moab."
Chemosh
In connection with the brief account of the victory of Sihon over
Moab, a fragment of a victory ode exulting over the defeat of the
Moabites is included. In part, it reads:
Numbers 22:29. Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people
of Chemosh . . .
Chemosh was the national god of Moab and it was natural to speak
of Moab, in those days of wide acceptance of local gods, as the "peo-
ple of Chemosh."
Only a few thinkers in those primitive times recognized a universal
God. Generally, the feeling was that each bit of land had its own
NUMBERS 179
god, and that over its own bit of land each god had godlike power.
It was even felt that the god was tied to the land; that if one
traveled elsewhere it became necessary to worship the god of that
land unless one carried his own god. Thus, when Rachel left the
house of her father Laban, she took Laban's idols with her:
Genesis 31:19 . . . and Rachel had stolen the images that were
her father's.
and Laban was more distressed at this than at the loss of his daughters
and the goods and cattle that Jacob had carried off:
Genesis 31:30. . . . though thou wouldest needs be gone . . .
wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?
The manner in which the Israelites carried the ark of the covenant
with them during their travels in the wilderness had a little of the
flavor of carrying God with them. Otherwise, one suspects, they might
have felt it necessary always to travel back to Sinai to commune with
Him.
In the religious thought of that day, there was no necessary feeling
of antagonism toward the gods of other tribes, provided no actual
war was going on and the enemy was not calling upon his god for
help in your destruction (as you were calling upon yours for help
in his destruction). The situation might be much the same as in our
own feeling for the flags of foreign nations. If we are at peace with
a foreign nation, international usage requires that we treat its flag
with decent respect even in our own land. It would be even more a
matter of elementary courtesy to treat the flag of a foreign nation
with respect while inside the borders of that nation.
In later times, however, as a consciousness of the universality of
Yahveh grew among the Israelites, and as the feeling deepened that
there was only one God, not only for the Israelites but for all the
world— that there was one only God— the attitude of the Yahvists
toward the gods of other tribes hardened. The foreign gods were not
only potential enemies; they were no gods at all. At most, they
were demons who imposed their worship on the ignorant, unenlight-
ened, or wicked. As a result, when Chemosh was referred to in later
books of the Bible, it was as something shameful:
1 Kings 11:7. . . . Chemosh, the abomination of Moab . . .
i8o
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Heshbon
The conflict between Sihon and Moab presented a wonderful op-
portunity for the Israelites. Whereas Moab and Ammon were related
tribes, according to the Biblical interpretation of events, and there-
fore untouchable, Sihon was a non-Hebrew and might be attacked.
Or, to put it in less idealistic fashion, Moab and Ammon were settled
kingdoms with well-fortified borders that it might be difficult to attack
Thus the chapter states:
Numbers 21:24. . . . the border of the children of Ammon was
strong.
(It may be, however, that this verse is mistranslated and that the He-
brew word translated as "strong" refers to the town of Jazer, defining it
as the boundary of Ammon.)
It would seem reasonable, though, that the region conquered by
Sihon would be in a state of confusion and weakness. The strong
points, overthrown and broken down by the Amorites, might not yet
have been restored; and although the Amorites had cowed Moab into
submission they might be in no condition now to face a new, fresh foe.
This proved, indeed, to be the case. Israel demanded passage through
the land, something Sihon could not allow. When passage was refused,
the Israelites attacked, and defeated the Amorites,
Numbers 21:24. . . . and possessed his land from Amon unto
Jabbok . . .
Numbers 21:25. And Israel . . . dwelt in all the cities of the
Amorites, in Heshbon . . .
Heshbon was the chief city of the region and was located about
twenty miles east of the northern tip of the Dead Sea. It is still there
as a town in Jordan, with the Arabic name of Hesban.
Bashan
The Israelites had now established themselves firmly on the eastern
bank of the Jordan and had a base from which to launch the con-
NUMBERS l8l
quest of Canaan itself. That base, however, had to be broadened as
widely as possible. Assuming that Moab and Ammon must remain
inviolate, there was still the fertile pastures north of Ammon. These
were attractive to the Israelites.
Numbers 21:33. And they turned and went up by the way of
Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them ... to
the battle at Edrei.
The exact borders of Bashan are uncertain but it was, in general,
located to the east of the Sea of Galilee. It was for a long time a
prosperous, fertile region, so much so that the quality of its cattle be-
came proverbial in Biblical times— and through the Bible in our own
times, too. In the 22nd Psalm, its cattle are used metaphorically to
represent the intensity of woes besetting the psalmist:
Psalm 22:12. Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of
Bashan have beset me round.
And the prophet Amos uses them to represent the prosperous and
self-satisfied aristocrats of the nation:
Amos 4:1. Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan . . .
Bashan was also famous for its oaks. The prophet Ezekiel, in ironi-
cally listing the glories of the merchant city of Tyre before going on
to prophesy its utter fall, describes the excellence of its ships by saying,
in part,
Ezekiel 27:5. Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars . . .
Bashan remained prosperous under shifting tides of political change
until it was taken over by the Arabs in the seventh century aj>. After
that, decline was rapid. Nowadays, the territory that was once Bashan
makes up the southwestern corner of Syria, bordering Jordan to its
south and Israel to its west. Edrei, the sight of the battle between
Og and the Israelites, exists now as the town of Deraa, right on the
Jordanian border, with a population of about four thousand.
The territory is now largely occupied by the Druses, a Moham-
medan sect which, since its establishment about aj>. 1000, has man-
aged to maintain its existence even against the far superior power
of the Turks before World War I, or the French after it.
The conquest of Bashan was one of the events in early Israelite
182
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
military history that most impressed the later writers, both Biblical and
post-Biblical. Part of the reason is that Og, king of Bashan, was reputed
to be a giant. This is based upon a statement in the Book of Deu-
teronomy, where Moses is pictured as reviewing the events following
the Exodus:
Deuteronomy 3:11. For only Og king of Bashan remained of
the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of
iron . . . nine cubits was the length thereof and four cubits the
breadth of it . . .
Judging from measurements made on the ruins of the Temple at
Jerusalem (whose measurements in cubits we know), it would seem
that a cubit is equal to about seventeen and a half inches. In that
case, Og's bed was about thirteen feet long and six feet wide.* A large
bed, to be sure, though it need not be taken that Og's body had to fill
it top to bottom and side to side.
Later rabbinical writers expanded on Og's size and made him the
last of the Nephilim who lived before the Flood (see page 72).
To survive the Flood, however, Og would have had to be in Noah's
ark, into which he could not fit. The legendmakers have it, then, that
he sat astride the ark and was fed by Noah till the waters fell.
This association of Og and the Flood (concerning which there
is no Biblical evidence whatever) may have been helped along by the
fact that the Greek myths had an ancient King Ogyges who reigned
during a great deluge. It might have seemed reasonable (to legendmak-
ers) to suppose that Og and Ogyges were different forms of the same
name.
The manner of Og's legendary death is also dramatic. He raised
a huge mountain to hurl at the Israelites and tripped and fell in the
attempt. Thereupon, Moses himself leaped at him and killed him.
It is very likely that this last picture of Og is borrowed from the
semicomic Greek myth of the revolt of the giants against Zeus and
the Olympians. Those giants hurled mountains (one of the moun-
tains crashed into the sea, according to the tale, and became Sicily)
but were slain anyway.
* There are large, iron-gray stones of basalt placed over primitive graves in the
area east of Jordan, about the size indicated in the verse. If this is considered,
metaphorically, as the final resting place or "bed" of a ruler or warrior, that might
account for the rise of the legend of Og's gianthood.
NUMBERS 183
Balaam
The fact that the Israelites had conquered Heshbon and Bashan
was quite sufficient to alarm Moab. Even though its own territory had
not been attacked, it had no assurance it was not next on the list. Be-
sides, Moab could scarcely have failed to consider Heshbon, the recent
conquest of Sihon, as its own territory, and the Israelites, having con-
quered it in turn, were certainly not planning to restore it to Moab.
Balak, the king of Moab, decided to weaken the Israelites by the
more subtle means of the supernatural, rather than by outright attack.
Numbers 22:5. He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam ... to
Pethor . . . saying . . .
Numbers 22:6. . . . curse me this people . . . for ... he whom
thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.
Apparently, Balaam was a well-known sorcerer or magician of his
time, one who was believed to know the rites whereby supernatural
help or harm could be called down and who had demonstrated his
knowledge and skill, at least to the satisfaction of common report.
Balaam's fame in this respect can be regarded as widespread for
his town of Pethor is usually accepted as being on the Euphrates, some
four hundred miles north of Moab. It is identified with a town called
"Pitru" in the Assyrian records and "Pedru" in the Egyptian records.
(Some consider this distance too great to be plausible and suggest
that the verse has undergone some distortion and that Balaam was
really an Ammonite living only a few dozen miles north of Moab.)
Balaam's power was accepted even by the Israelites and nowhere
in the Bible is Balaam's power to bless and curse derided. It is rather
treated as a fortunate miracle that God chose to make Balaam's curses
come to nothing.
Indeed, belief can be sufficient. If the Moabites were convinced of
the efficacy of Balaam's curse on the Israelites, they would fight with
more confidence and spirit in the battle that followed. And if the Is-
raelites were likewise convinced, they would have been correspondingly
disheartened and might well have been defeated and driven away
by the Moabites.
184
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
According to the later view, Balaam served for hire and bestowed
his blessing and curses not necessarily as inspired to do so by God,
but in response to the fees he was offered by those who wished to
employ him. Thus, in the book of Jude in the New Testament, Jude
says:
Jude 1:11. Woe unto them! for they . . . ran greedily after the
error of Balaam for reward . . .
For this reason the expression "Balaamite" is used to describe some-
one who uses religion primarily as a money-making device.
Baal
Balak had to send several times for Balaam, who was reluctant to
accept the commission. (The scvcral-times-repeated journey is a point
in favor of those who feel that Balaam's home was not very far removed
from Moab. The story of the missions is not entirely self-consistent
and was probably derived from two separate and somewhat conflict-
ing sources.)
Eventually Balaam did saddle up for the journey to Moab and on
that journey occurred the famous incident of his talking ass. An angel
blocked the way; an angel that the ass carrying Balaam could see
but Balaam himself could not. When the ass balked, Balaam beat him
and the ass spoke up in its own defense. This is one of the two in-
cidents in the Bible in which an animal is depicted as speaking. (The
serpent in Eden is the other.) The miraculous nature of this incident
is such that later legends described the ass's mouth as one of the ob-
jects specially created in the initial week of creation for use in later
history.
Once Balaam arrived in Moab, Balak hastened to place him where
his curses might be most effective; in the mountain heights near
Heaven where the gods might best hear him and where the power
of his words could best fan out over the Israelites whom he was
to curse:
Numbers 22:41. . . . Balak took Balaam and brought him up
into the high places of Baal, that thence he might see . . . part of
the [Israelite] people.
NUMBERS 185
The phrase "high places of Baal" is a translation of the Hebrew
Bamoth-Baal, which later, in the Book of Joshua, is mentioned as a
town in Moab. The town was located in the highlands, however, and
was named in honor of Baal because the site was associated with im-
portant religious rites. The effect is therefore the same whether one
speaks of "Bamoth-Baal" or of "the high places of Baal."
The word baal meant, in the various Semitic languages, "master"
or "owner," sometimes in a very mundane sense. In the Book of
Exodus, one finds:
Exocus 21:28. . . . the owner of the ox shall be quit.
and "owner" is here the translation of the Hebrew word baal.
"Baal" was also used as a common title for Semitic deities with the
precise connotation of the English "Lord." It was never used as the
specific name of any idol. Indeed, the Israelites used the word as a
title for Yahveh at least up through the time of David. Thus, one of
the sons of King Saul (who was always depicted as a sincere Yahvist)
was named Ishbaal or "man of the Lord," and one of his grandsons,
Merib-baal or "hero of the Lord."
The word baal was so frequently used for idols, however, that the
later Biblical writers could not look upon it as simply "Lord" or apply
it, under any circumstance, to Yahveh. The term Adonai for "Lord"
succeeded baal and in time, it became even disgraceful to use the earlier
term. When the name Ishbaal had to be written, for instance, Ish-
bosheth was used instead:
2 Samuel 2:8. .. . Abner . . . took Ish-bosheth the son of Saul,
and brought him over to Mahanaim;
Bosheth meant "shame" and was used to indicate what was con-
sidered a shameful word. The effect is the same as our own habit of
sometimes using asterisks to fill out an improper word. It is as though
we were to write "Ishbaal" as "Ish****."
Pisgah
Unfortunately, for the Moabites, Balaam found himself unable to
curse the Israelites. Under the direct inspiration of God, according
i86
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to the Biblical account, his attempts to curse were converted into
blessings. Balak desperately sought other posts which might prove
more efficacious:
Numbers 23:14. And he [Balak] brought him [Balaam] ... to
the top of Pisgah . . .
Numbers 23:28. And Balak brought Balaam unto the top of
Peor ...
Mount Pisgah is nowadays identified with a peak only six miles
southwest of Heshbon and perhaps twelve miles east of the northern
end of the Dead Sea. It is twenty miles north of the Amon River and
if the identification is correct, it makes it obvious that Moabite forces
were edging into the territory recently conquered by the Israelites— per-
haps while the main force of the latter was occupied in Bashan.
Mount Pisgah is 2644 feet high, or just about half a mile. Mount
Peor, which has no certain identification, was probably somewhat
north of Pisgah, so that although Peor was not quite as high a peak
as Pisgah, it was closer to the enemy. An alternate name of Pisgah is
Nebo and under the latter name it is most famous as the place of
burial of Moses.
Unicorn
Balaam's inability to curse continued at all stations. From Mount
Pisgah, Balaam praised God, saying:
Numbers 23:22. God brought them out of Egypt; he [Israel] hath
as it were the strength of an unicorn.
The Bible mentions the unicorn on several other occasions, notably
in the Book of Job:
Job 39:9. Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by
thy crib?
The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by
"unicorn" is re' em, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (urus or
aurochs) ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. The re' em still
flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modem
NUMBERS 187
times although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great
strength and was similar in form and temperament to the Asian
buffaloes.
The Revised Standard Version translates re'em always as "wild ox."
The verse in Numbers is translated as "they have as it were the horns
of the wild ox," while the one in Job is translated "Is the wild ox
willing to serve you?" The Anchor Bible translates the verse in Job
as "Will the buffalo deign to serve you?"
The wild ox was a favorite prey of the hunt-loving Assyrian mon-
archs (the animal was called nimu in Assyrian, essentially the same
word as re'em) and was displayed in their large bas-reliefs. Here the
wild ox was invariably shown in profile and only one horn was visible.
One can well imagine that the animal represented in this fashion
would come to be called "one-horn" as a familar nickname, much as
we might refer to "longhoms" in speaking of a certain breed of cattle.
As the animal itself grew less common under the pressure of in-
creasing human population and the depredations of the hunt, it might
come to be forgotten that there was a second horn hidden behind the
first in the sculptures and "one-horn" might come to be considered a
literal description of the animal.
When the first Greek translation of the Bible was prepared about
250 b.c. the animal was already rare in the long-settled areas of the
Near East and the Greeks, who had had no direct experience with it,
had no word for it. They used a translation of "one-horn" instead
and it became monokeros. In Latin and in English it became
the Latin word for "one-horn"; that is, "unicorn."
The Biblical writers could scarcely have had the intention of imply-
ing that the wild ox literally had one hom. There is one Biblical quota-
tion, in fact, that clearly contradicts that notion. In the Book of
Deuteronomy, when Moses is giving his final blessing to each tribe,
he speaks of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) as follows:
Deuteronomy 33:17. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock,
and his horns are like the horns of unicorns . . .
Here the word unicorn is placed in the plural since the thought of
a "one-hom's" single horn seems to make the phrase "horns of a
unicorn" self-contradictory. Still, the original Hebrew has the word
in the singular so that we must speak of the "horns of a unicorn,"
which makes it clear that a unicorn has more than one horn. In ad-
i88
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
dition, the parallelism used in Hebrew poetry makes it natural to
equate "unicorn" and "bullock," showing that the unicorn is some-
thing very much resembling a young bull. The Revised Standard
Version has, in this verse, the phrase "the horns of a wild ox."
And yet the fact that the Bible speaks of a unicorn seemed, through
most of history, to place the seal of divine assurance upon the fact that
a one-horned animal existed. The unicorn is therefore commonplace
in legends and stories.
This is especially so since travelers in Greek times spoke of a one-
horned beast that existed in India, and assigned great powers to the
single horn of that animal. For instance, a cup made out of the horn
of such a beast rendered harmless any poisonous liquid that might be
poured into it.
There is, indeed, a one-horned beast in India (as well as in Malaya,
Sumatra, and Africa) and this is the rhinoceros (from Greek words
meaning "nose-horn"). The horn on its snout is not a true horn but
is a concretion of hair; nevertheless, the concretion looks like a horn
and fulfills the purpose of one. It is very likely that the rhinoceros is
the Greek unicorn, although its horn scarcely possesses the magic
qualities attributed to it in legend.
Since the rhinoceros is one of the largest land animals still alive,
and is possessed of enormous strength, it might be thought to fit
the description in the Bible. Some Latin translations of the Bible
therefore convert the Greek monokeros into "rhinoceros." But this is
farfetched. It is very unlikely that the Biblical writer knew of the
rhinoceros and they certainly knew of the wild ox.
The unicorn entered European legend without reference to the
rhinoceros, which was as unknown to the medieval Westerner as to the
Biblical Israelite. The shape of the unicorn was, to the European, what-
ever fancy pleased to make it, and it is most familiar to us now as
a rather horselike creature with a single long horn on its forehead. In
this shape, two unicorns were depicted as supporting the royal arms of
Scotland. When Scotland and England were combined under the
House of Stuart in 1603, the Scottish unicorns joined the English lions
on the coat of arms of what now became Great Britain.
The old enmity between the two nations is reflected in the nursery
rhyme "The lion and the unicorn were fighting for the crown." The
fact that it is an English rhyme and that England usually won the
NUMBERS 189
wars, though never conclusively, is signified by the second line, "The
lion beat the unicorn all around the town."
The most distinctive feature of this modem unicorn is its horn,
which is long, thin, slowly tapering, and a straight helix. It has pre-
cisely the shape and dimensions, in fact, of the single tooth of the
male of a species of whale called the narwhal. This tooth takes the
shape of a tusk, sometimes twenty feet long.
Undoubtedly, sailors occasionally obtained such tusks and then sold
them to landlubbers for great sums by claiming each to be the horn
of a unicorn with all the magical virtue of that object
The Daughters of Moab
Though neither force nor enchantments had removed the Israelite
danger from Moab, mere propinquity seemed on the point of becom-
ing sufficient for the purpose. The Israelites, with their years of wander-
ing through wilderness, had not been able to develop elaborate rituals
and they found themselves fascinated by the enticing rites of the more
sophisticated religions of settled city-dwellers:
Numbers 25:1. And Israel . . . began to commit whoredom with
the daughters of Moab.
Numbers 25:2. And they [the Moabite women] called the people
unto the sacrifices of their gods . . .
Numbers 25:3 And Israel joined himself unto Baal-Peor . . .
where Baal-Peor ("the Lord of Mount Peor") was, presumably,
Chemosh.
The apostasy of the Israelites is, according to the Biblical story,
punished by a plague, and by firm measures on the part of Moses,
who ordered the slaughter of the idolaters. Equating national gods
with something of the emotions bome by national flags today, the
horror of the Biblical writers at this event might be compared to our
own feelings if 'we discovered a sizable segment of our own popula-
tion gathering in time of war to salute the enemy flag and to sing
the enemy anthem.
Nor was this trespass with respect to Chemosh considered an ac-
cident. It was supposed to be a deliberate policy on the part of the
Moabites (following the advice of Balaam) to use their women for
190
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the purpose of seducing the Israelites to apostasy. Thus, Moses, in a
later verse, is described as saying of foreign women:
Numbers 31:16. Behold, these caused the children of Israel,
through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the
Lord . . .
The memory of this incident strengthened the position of the more
intransigeant Yahvists in later history against intermarriage with for-
eign women.
Gilead
After the episode of Balaam and the incident of the seduction of the
Israelites by Moab, it might be expected that war between Moab and
Israel would be described. Instead, it is Midian that is attacked by
Israel. The Midianite tribes of the eastern desert are described as hav-
ing been in alliance with Moab against Israel, as having participated
in the call to Balaam, and the Midianite women are also described as
seducing Israelites.
This tale of war against the Midianites has its difficulties, however,
and it is commonly thought to be unhistorical. It may perhaps be a
pious invention of later times to mask an actual war fought incon-
clusively against Moab. After all, Moab remained in being and in con-
trol of the territory east of the Dead Sea for centuries. By failing to
mention any war with Moab the Biblical writers could continue to
maintain the position that the Israelites did not attack any Hebrew
tribe.
Yet even with Moab in existence, the Israelites remained in occupa-
tion of most of the area east of the Jordan River and the Sea of
Galilee. Part of this was Ammonite territory but the Bible is silent as
to the fate of the Ammonites in this period. The Israelites are not
described as attacking the Ammonites, a Hebrew people, yet their
territory was soon to be settled by Israelite tribes. Indeed, part of the
confederacy was eying the territory even in Moses' lifetime while the
projected conquest of Canaan proper had not yet begun:
Numbers 32:1. Now the children of Reuben and the children
of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw . . .
the land of Gilead . . . behold, the place was a place for cattle;
NUMBERS 191
The boundaries of Gilead are indefinite but at its broadest, it covers
the whole of the area east of the Jordan River; the "Trans-Jordan" we
might call it.
Gilead had appeared earlier in the Biblical account. When Jacob
had left Laban to return to Canaan, Laban pursued him and caught
up with him in Gilead for a final interview:
Genesis 31:23. And he [Laban] . . . pursued after him [Jacob]
seven days journey; and . . . overtook him in the mount Gilead.
Mount Gilead could refer to the range of highlands running down
the eastern side of the Jordan, or to a particularly prominent peak in
that range just south of the Jabbok River and about twelve miles east
of the Jordan. It is some 3600 feet high.
The tribes requesting the land had first to convince Moses that they
were not proposing to quit the confederacy. They would participate
in the conquest of Canaan and would return to their Trans-Jordanian
holdings only after that conquest was assured. Once that was made
plain, Moses permitted the allotment.
Gilead was, in consequence, divided among the cattle-owning tribes
of Reuben and Gad. Reuben took the area south of Heshbon and
north of Moab, while Gad had virtually the entire east bank of the
Jordan. Bashan fell to the lot of part of the tribe of Manasseh
(another portion of which occupied territory in Canaan proper).
In one sense, the Trans-Jordan was a good location, for the area
was described as rich and desirable. It was, however, also exposed.
Reuben was under the perpetual shadow of Moab and quickly faded
out of Israelite history, probably through absorption into Moabite cul-
ture. Gad and Manasseh were exposed to raids from the Ammonites
and the Midianites, and later had to bear the first brunt of the more
serious assaults of the Syrian and Assyrian armies in the latter days of
the Israelite kingdom.
The name Gilead may be a corruption of Gad (which occupied
much of it) or vice versa. On the other hand, the Biblical genealogies
have Gilead a grandson of Manasseh:
Numbers 26:26. Of the sons of Manasseh: . . . Machir . . . and
Machir begat Gilead . . .
There may be some connection between this eponymous ancestor
of the body of men known as "Gileadites," the land itself, and the
fact that a portion of the tribe of Manasseh occupied part of Gilead.
1 9 2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Just as Baslian was particularly known for its cattle, so Gilead was
famous for the resinous products of some of its trees and shrubs; prod-
ucts which could be turned into soothing, fragrant ointments and
used as skin softeners, cosmetics, perfumes, and incense.
This balsam, or balm, of Gilead was highly valued. When Joseph's
brothers were planning to sell him for a slave it was to a party of
traders to whom they sold him and they:
Genesis 37:25. . . . came from Gilead with their camels bearing
spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt.
When the prophet Jeremiah pleads with the people to return to the
Lord, pointing out that the remedy to all their evils is in their midst
only waiting for them, he makes use of the metaphorical (and rhetori-
cal) question:
Jeremiah 8:22. Is there no balm in Gilead . . ,
The question is intended to have the obvious answer, yes! So, reasons
Jeremiah, is God present for the relief of His people.
5. DEUTERONOMY
DEUTERONOMY "LEBANON • CAPHTOR "MOUNT HERMON "RABBATH "MOUNT
GERIZIM " BELIAL « SAINTS • THE BLESSING OF MOSES
Deuteronomy
The fifth book of the Bible begins:
Deuteronomy 1:1. These be the words which Moses spake . . .
In Hebrew, the opening phrase is Elleh haddebarim and that, or the
briefer form "Debarim" ("words") is the Hebrew name of the book.
The book does not advance Israelite history but purports to be the
record of a series of addresses given by Moses on the eve of his death
and of the Israelite entry into Canaan. These addresses recapitulate
the events of the Exodus and restate key portions of the law as it was
received from Sinai.
One might suppose that it was for this reason that the Greek-speaking
translaters of the Septuagint named the book "Deuteronomion" (which
became our own Deuteronomy) or "second law."
Actually, however, the Greek name arose through a misapprehension.
In the course of his discourses, Moses enjoins strict obedience to the
law on the part of the future kings of Israel:
Deuteronomy 17:18. . . . when he [the king] sitteth upon the
throne of his kingdom . . . he shall write him a copy of this law . . .
Deuteronomy 17:19. And it shall be with him, and he shall read
therein . . . that he may learn ... to keep all the words of this
law . . .
The phrase in verse 18, "a copy of this law" was incorrectly translated
in the Septuagint as deuteronomion ("a second law") and it is from
this that our name derives.
Canaan Before the Conquest
DEUTERONOMY 195
The bulk of Deuteronomy is neither J, E, nor P, but represents
a fourth major source of the Hexateuch. It seems quite likely that
Deuteronomy is the one book of the Hexateuch that existed in es-
sentially its present fashion before the Exile.
At least, Deuteronomy, or part of it, is usually identified with "the
book of the law" discovered in the Temple in 621 b.c. during the
reign of King Josiah:
2 Kings 22:8. And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the
scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord . . .
This came at a time when there was periodic strife between the
temporal and spiritual power in the kingdom and when there had been
two recent reigns that were disastrous for the Yahvists. On the other
hand, there was now an impressionable young king on the throne,
Josiah.
Perhaps it occurred to some among the priesthood to prepare an
organized exposition of the laws which, in Yahvist eyes, ought to
govern the king and the people, writing into it a clear spiritual suprem-
acy. This writing, as the "book of the law" was then providentially
"discovered" in the Temple and brought to the king. The doctrine,
placed in the mouth of Moses, treated as of great antiquity, and put
forward most eloquently, was bound to impress the king.
It did, and the priestly plan succeeded in full. Until then, Yahvism
had been a minority sect, often persecuted, and sometimes in danger
of being wiped out altogether. Now, for the first time, it assumed an
ascendancy, and, thanks to the enthusiastic co-operation of Josiah, it
was made the official religion of the land.
There was backsliding after Josiah's death, but Yahvism had been
made powerful enough to meet the challenge of the Exile, which fol-
lowed soon after. The Yahvistic priests, during the Exile, as they
edited the old traditions and codified the laws, incorporated Deuter-
onomy virtually intact into the Hexateuch.
After the Exile, Yahvism, the minority sect, had become Judaism,
the national religion of the people. Through its daughter religions,
Christianity and Islam, Yahvism came to dominate the religious life
of well over a billion people in the time that has passed since then. If
Deuteronomy is dealt with briefly in this book because it is not pri-
marily concerned with history, that does not mean it may not be the
most important part of the Bible in some ways; or even the most
important piece of writing in the world.
196
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Lebanon
Moses begins his recapitulation of events at Sinai with God's in-
structions that the Israelites leave for Canaan. The boundaries of
Canaan as assigned to them by God are given, and these are the
ideal boundaries which, in the north particularly, were only very tem-
porarily achieved at Israel's brief peak of power two centuries after the
conquest:
Deuteronomy 1:7. .. . unto Lebanon, unto . . . the river Eu-
phrates.
Deuteronomy 1:8. Behold, I have set the land before you . . .
Lebanon referred originally to two mountain ranges north of Canaan
running parallel to the Mediterranean coast; one about twenty miles
inland and the other about forty miles inland, each about a hundred
miles long. These are higher than the highlands of Canaan, and have
some peaks up to two miles high. The Lebanese mountains are there-
fore more notable for their snowy peaks than are any of the heights
in Canaan and it is from that, apparently, that the mountain ranges
and the land in which they are found get their names. "Lebanon" is
from the Hebrew word for "white."
The Greeks distorted the name somewhat and called the mountain
range nearer the sea the "Libanus" and the one farther inland the
"Anti-Libanus." Between is a valley, about ten miles wide, which the
Greeks called "Coele-Syria." Literally, this is "hollow Syria" and means,
in freer translation, "the valley of Syria."
In post-Biblical times, the area around the Lebanese ranges was the
home of a Christian sect, the Maronites, which persisted (under severe
persecution at times) through the long centuries of Mohammedan
domination. When the area was freed of Turkish rule, the French (who
took over Syria as a mandate under the League of Nations) established
Lebanon as a district separate from the rest of Syria, thanks to its dif-
ference in religion. In 1944, when independence came to the man-
date, the region became a separate and independent state, the Leb-
anese Republic.
Modem Lebanon is a small nation, about twice as large as Dela-
ware, and has a population of about 2,200,000. It lies directly north
DEUTERONOMY I97
of modem Israel and the two are the only non-Moslem powers in a
sea of Arabic states.
Just as Bashan was known for its bulls and oaks, and Gilead for its
balm, Lebanon was known for its forests of cedar. Cedarwood is fra-
grant and makes excellent building material. Solomon built much of
the Temple and of his palace out of cedar:
1 Kings 7:2. He built also the house [his palace] of the forest of
Lebanon . . . upon four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams upon
the pillars.
The cedar tree was looked upon as a particularly stately and mag-
nificent tree, rivaling the oak as king of the forest.
During the time of the judges, Jotham, the lone survivor of a
massacred family, addressed those who had helped conduct the mas-
sacre in a fable intended to imply that the wont people were now
ruling the land. These he represented by the bramble, and he went on
to point out that such a lowly object in its vainglory would not hesitate
to attack the highest and best. He has the bramble say:
Judges 9:1;. . . . and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and
devour the cedars of Lebanon.
Similarly, Isaiah, in warning the proud and haughty to beware
God's judgment (in "the day of the Lord"), uses both the cedars of
Lebanon and the oaks of Bashan as metaphors for haughty pride.
Isaiah 2:12. For the day of the Lord . . . shall be upon every
one that is proud and lofty . . .
Isaiah 2:13. And upon all the cedars of Lebanon . . . and upon
all the oaks of Bashan,
The beauty and fragrance of the cedars and of their wood, and the
use of cedar in temples and palaces, lent a glamorous glow to Lebanon
generally, and this is made full use of in the Song of Solomon.
Song of Solomon 4:8. Come with me from Lebanon, my
spouse . . .
Song of Solomon 4:11. . . . the smell of thy garments is like the
smell of Lebanon.
And the loved one is described as:
Song of Solomon 4:15. A fountain of gardens, a well of living
waters, and streams from Lebanon.
198
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Island of Caphtor
Caphtor
Moses goes on to describe the route followed by the Israelites from
Sinai to the Jordan, then pauses to tell something of the prehistory of
Canaan. He describes the tribes that were evicted from their territory
by the invading Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites (presumably in
the period of Ikhnaton.) The pre-Hebrew tribes are described, in ac-
cordance with later legends, as giants (see page 72).
In the list, however, are the Avim, who were displaced by a non-
Hebrew people:
DEUTERONOMY 199
Deuteronomy 2:23. And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even
unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor,
destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.
The district spoken of is the southern portion of the seacoast of
Canaan. The town Azzah is taken to be Gaza, for instance, and that
is near the southern edge of what, in the next stage of Israelite history,
was to be Philistine territory. The Philistines did take the area at the
time of the Exodus or shortly before and they ruled there in the cen-
turies afterward. It seems certain then that by Caphtorim are meant
the Philistines.
For further Biblical evidence, we find that the prophet Amos makes
the identification when he quotes God as saying:
Amos 9:7. .. . Have not I brought up . . . the Philistines from
Caphtor . . .
and Jeremiah does the same when he says:
Jeremiah 47:4. . . .the Lord will spoil the Philistines the remnant
of the country of Caphtor.
The question then is: Where is Caphtor?
Unlike the other groups who established kingdoms over sections of
Canaan and surrounding regions at this time, the Caphtorim (Philis-
tines) established themselves on the seacoast. They, it would seem,
invaded from the sea, rather than from Arabia. Indeed, it seems al-
most inevitable to conclude that they were part of the Peoples of the
Sea who, in Merneptah's reign, were raiding the Egyptian coast.
This may be an important hint as to. the identity of Caphtor, since the
Peoples of the Sea were, in part at least, of Greek origin.
This is borne out by the fact that the Israelites always spoke of the
Philistines, particularly, as being "uncircumcised." Circumcision was a
rite that was by no means confined to the Israelites. It was practiced
among the ancient Egyptians and among most of the Semites of the
western portion of the Fertile Crescent (the latter, perhaps, through
Egyptian cultural influence.)
Abraham is described as not having been circumcised until he was
well advanced in years:
Genesis 17:24. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when
he was circumcised . . .
200
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
but, according to the Biblical story, Abraham was an east-Semite by
birth. His circumcision can be viewed as the adoption of a west-Semitic
rite.
The Philistines remained uncircumcised and it is tempting to think
of them, then, as being neither Egyptian nor west-Semitic in culture
and that leaves the strong possibility of their being Greek.
What, then, was the situation of the Greek world at the time of the
Exodus, and before?
About 2000 b.c, in the time of Abraham, the Greeks entered the
peninsula which is now called Greece. They found to the south, on the
island of Crete (about sixty miles off the southeastern tip of Greece),
an already advanced civilization. This was the Minoan civilization,
named for the legendary King Minos of Crete.
The Greeks occupied the Greek peninsula and absorbed the Minoan
culture, building strong cities of their own on that peninsula. These
early Greeks may be referred to as Mycenaeans because one of their
chief cities was Mycenae.
The Mycenaeans expanded vigorously at the expense of the declining
Minoan culture and by 1400 b.c, shortly before the time of Ikhnaton,
the original Minoans no longer formed a separate and distinct people.
Even in Crete itself, the Greek language prevailed.
The Mycenaeans, soon after 1400 b.c, were beginning to feel the
push of new waves of barbarians from the interior, including less
civilized tribes of Greek-speaking peoples, and were themselves in in-
creasing turmoil. Armed bands, seeking new homes after their old
ones were ravaged, or merely seeking to carve out new dominions in
place of a growingly insecure home base, made up strong contingents
of the Peoples of the Sea.
The Mycenaeans of the Greek mainland were close to Asia Minor
and they invaded that peninsula. The tale of the war against Troy
seems to be a distant memory of that invasion. The Trojan War may
have initiated (or been part of) the general turmoil on that peninsula
that led to the final destruction of the Hittite Empire.
Could it be then that armed bands from Crete fanned southward
to Egypt and eastward to Canaan, and that Caphtor refers to the
island of Crete? Most Biblical scholars are content to think so.
Of course, not everything about the Philistines is Greek. In language
and customs they are largely Semitic. The names of their cities, their
DEUTERONOMY 201
kings, and their gods are Semitic words. This may represent a certain
assimilation of west-Semitic culture after the invasion, but it may also
indicate that the original invasion was at least partly Semitic to begin
with.
Is this possible? Yes, it is, even if Caphtor was Crete. Greek myths
make the Cretan king, Minos, the son of Europa, a princess from a
portion of the Canaanite coast called by the Greeks Phoenicia. The
Canaanite princess had been brought to Crete by Zeus in the guise of
a bull.
This may be the mythical reminiscence of the days when trade and
cultural exchange between the Minoan and Canaanite civilizations was
rich and full. The Minoan civilization might even have stemmed in
part from the older Canaanite civilization.
Nor was this fusion long-distance only. Both Minoans and Canaan-
ites were in those days a seagoing people. At the height of Minoan
power, the Cretan navy dominated the eastern Mediterranean and
Cretan ships brought Minoan products and Minoan culture to the island
of Cyprus, 350 miles to the east, and to the southern regions of the
Asia Minor coast, which in spots is only fifty miles north of Cyprus.
Canaanite (Phoenician) colonies were also established on Cyprus and
throughout Biblical times, Cyprus remained part Greek and part Ca-
naanite in culture.
Could it be, then, that the Israelites and Greeks, both heir to a kind
of fused Minoan-Canaanite culture, are first cousins culturally speak-
ing? Some archaeologists feel themselves attracted to this rather startling
possibility.
Can it also be that the Caphtorim who invaded the southern coast
of Canaan were not raiders from distant Crete, but from the much
closer Cyprus and its environs? In that case Caphtor would be Cyprus
and the raiders might have a Minoan-Canaanite culture, fusing Semitic
language with a lack of circumcision.
Tiny, uncertain clues come from the fact that in Egyptian inscrip-
tions, the term "Kafto" is used for a region that seems to include
the southern coast of Asia Minor. Arguing on the other side, however,
is the fact that the name for the inhabitants of Cyprus, as given in the
Old Testament, seems to be "Chittim" or "Kittim."
This name seems to be derived from Kition (Citium, in Latin),
a city on the southeastern coast of Cyprus and the chief center of
202
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Canaanite (Phoenician) culture on the island. It is possible that a
name meant for the chief city eventually spread out to include the
entire island, displacing the older name of Caphtor.
Mount Hermon
Moses then describes the manner in which the Israelites conquered
the district about Heshbon, and defeated Og of Bashan:
Deuteronomy 3:8. And we took . . . the land . . . from the river
of Anion unto Mount Hermon.
Mount Hermon makes a good landmark for the northern edge of
Canaan, so that to say "unto Mount Hermon" is like saying "to the
northern limits of Canaan." Mount Hermon, about forty miles north of
the Sea of Galilee, is a peak in the Anti-Libanus range; indeed, the
highest peak, being 9232 feet high. Its modern name is Jebel esh
Sheikh and it is on the border between Lebanon and Syria, about
fifteen miles northeast of the northern border of modem Israel.
Rabbath
In telling of the crowning victory over Og, mention is made of Og's
giant bedstead (see page 182):
Deuteronomy 3:11. . . . his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it
not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? . , .
This city is sometimes referred to as Rabbath-ammon, to differentiate
it from other cities of the same name elsewhere (as we would say
Portland, Maine, to distinguish it from Portland, Oregon). An alter-
nate spelling is Rabbah.
Rabbath was an important city of the trans-Jordan area, and lay
about fifteen miles northeast of Heshbon. It was the chief city of the
Ammonites and in that city the memory of the Ammonites survives al-
though the tribe itself has long since vanished. The town, under the
name of Amman, survives today as the capital of Jordan and has a
population of some 250,000.
DEUTERONOMY
203
Mount Cerizim
After enumerating again the laws delivered from Mount Sinai, Moses
warns the Israelites that there is both a blessing and a curse involved;
a blessing if they are obedient to the law and a curse if they are not.
Once they enter Canaan, they are to accede to this fact by solemn ritual
in a specific spot:
Deuteronomy 11:29. • • ■ *' I0U s ^ t *' ie blessing upon
mount Gerizim and the curse upon mount Ebal.
Cerizim and Ebal were the two mountains that flanked the narrow
valley in which Shechem was located (see page 99), Gerizim on the
south and Ebal on the north. They are not high mountains, the former
being a bit less than 3000 feet high, the latter a bit more than 3000.
Later in Deuteronomy, in the twenty-seventh chapter, Moses de-
scribes in detail how, after the conquest of Canaan, the tribes shall
distribute themselves on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, one group
to pronounce blessings and the other to pronounce curses. No doubt
this reflects the religious importance of the area of Shechem in pre-
Israelite days and marks the aura of sanctity that lingered over the
area even after the Israelite conquest. This was true particularly of
Mount Gerizim, which was associated with the blessings.
Among the later Jews, all holy places were gradually subordinated
to and eventually swallowed by the Temple at Jerusalem, but Mount
Gerizim continued as the sacred mountain to the sect of the Samari-
tans prominent in the region in New Testament times.
Belial
Moses goes on to warn the Israelites against the dangers of false
prophets and of those who would worship other gods. He warns
against:
Deuteronomy 13:13. . . • children of Belial . . . saying, Let us go
and serve other gods . . .
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The word belial means, literally, "not profitable." Something that is
belial is worthless and empty; "children of Belial" are people whose
views and opinions are worthless and empty, and therefore not to be
listened to.
It is a short step from considering something worthless to considering
it wicked. We have a similar case in English. The word "naughty"
originally meant worthless or empty, or something that "contained or
was worth naught," but came to mean wicked (although today it has
degenerated to the point where it merely describes troublesome chil-
dren).
The use of belial untranslated, especially if it is left capitalized, as
in the King James Version, tempts one into thinking of Belial as a
spirit of evil, perhaps as the devil himself. This is avoided in the Re-
vised Standard Version, which substitutes "base fellows" for "children
of Belial."
Nevertheless, it is not only moderns who come to consider Belial the
name of a demon. By New Testament times, the Jews had come to
do just this and Belial had become a synonym for Satan. Thus, in the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul asks:
2 Corinthians 6:15. And what concord hath Christ with Be-
lial? . . .
Saints
The last words ascribed to Moses in Deuteronomy make up a poem
containing short comments on each of the tribes, praising them, or
giving some intimation of the role they were to play in the time of
the kingdoms. The poem ("the blessing of Moses") begins with an
invocation of God:
Deuteronomy 33:2. And he [Moses] said, The Lord came from
Sinai, and rose up from Seir . . . he shined forth from mount Paran,
and he came with ten thousands of saints . . .
The word "saint" is from the Latin sanctus, meaning "holy." That
which is sanctified or holy is reserved for God and is withdrawn from
worldly uses. The word "saints" in the verse just quoted is a translation
of the Hebrew word kadesh but that can mean either a "holy person"
DEUTERONOMY 205
or a "holy place." Thus, the town at which the Israelites camped for
many years was Kadesh-barnea ("the holy place of Bamea").
It may be, then, that, with the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, the
verse names the place at which God appears (the mountains south of
Canaan) in slightly different ways: Sinai, Seir, Paran, and finally Meri-
bath-Kadesh (some region near Kadesh-barnea). This is not in the
least farfetched for there is such a place, mentioned only four verses
earlier, with a slightly different spelling:
Deuteronomy 32:51. . . .ye [Moses] trespassed against me [God]
among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh.
The translation of the place name into "ten thousands of saints"
thus gives an erroneous picture.
In the Psalms, the expression "saints" usually refers to godly, pious
people, very much in the modem manner, and is a translation of
hasid ("pious"). Thus:
Psalm 31:23. O love the Lord, all ye his saints . . .
In the time of the persecution of the Jews by the Seleucid king
Antiochus IV, in 170 B.C. and afterward, the beleaguered Jews began
to picture themselves as a people devoted to God and surrounded by
hordes of evil idolaters. All believing Jews were kadesh and could be
referred to in translation as "saints." When Daniel predicts that the
Jews will eventually be secure, and glory in an ideal kingdom set up
by God, he says:
Daniel 7:18. But the saints of the most High shall take the king-
dom . . .
In the New Testament, Paul commonly takes the same view of the
beleaguered early Christians. To him, writing in Greek, they are
oi hagioi ("the holy ones" or "the saints"). Thus:
Philippians 1:1. Paul and Timotheus . . . to all the saints . . .
which are at PMippi . . .
The Blessing of Moses
Like the earlier blessing of Jacob (see page 116), the blessing of
Moses seems to be a collection of traditional sayings, assigned in ret-
206
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
respect to an early personage. Of the two, the blessing of Moses
seems to be the later, and is appropriately ascribed, therefore, to the
later personage.
For one thing the reference to Joseph in the blessing of Jacob
makes no reference to the separate tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
The blessing of Moses does, however, speaking of:
Deuteronomy 33:17. . . . the ten thousands of Ephraim, and the
thousands of Manasseh.
The fact that Joseph and Levi receive the longest and most glowing
blessing would indicate that the sayings were collected and put into
final form by priestly hands in the northern kingdom of Israel, which
was dominated by the Joseph tribes and, in particular, by the "ten
thousands" of the more populous Ephraim. In that case, this would
have had to be done before the destruction of the northern king-
dom in 722 b.c.
This is further indicated by the fact that the tribe of Judah is given
brief and rather cool notice:
Deuteronomy 33:7. . . . let his hands be sufficient for him; and be
thou an help to him from his enemies.
No mention is made of Judah's kingship. This is natural if the say-
ings were collected in the northern kingdom after it had. split away
from Judean domination and would certainly not recognize the valid-
ity of the Davidic kingship. In the blessing of Jacob, however, much
is made of the Judean kingship, which would indicate that that collec-
tion dated back to the time of the undivided kingdom— about 950 b.c.
perhaps.
The blessing of Moses indicates further the decline of the tribes of
Reuben and Simeon, of which signs are present even in the earlier
blessing of Jacob.
Simeon is not mentioned at all in the blessing of Moses. The tribe
has lost its tribal identity, has been absorbed into Judah, and is
completely dismissed by the northern sources. Of Reuben, all that
can be said is:
Deuteronomy 33:6. Let Reuben live, and not die; and let not his
men be few.
DEUTERONOMY
207
But even this palliates the actual situation for the word "not" was
added by the pious translators of the King James Version, who would
not let Moses say something that sounded like a curse. However, the
word "not" is not present in the original Hebrew.
Catholic versions translate the verse: "May Ruben live and not die
out, but let his men be few." This represents the actual situation in
early tribal times and by the time of the kingdoms, Reuben did die out,
having been absorbed by Moab.
—With the conclusion of the speeches in the book of Deuteronomy,
Moses is taken to the top of Mount Nebo/Mount Pisgah, views Ca-
naan, which he is not to be allowed to enter, dies, and is buried. His
eventful life thus comes to its close.
6. JOSHUA
JOSHUA • JERICHO • CTLCAL • THE WALL [OF JERICHO] • AI • CIBEON •
AJALON • MEROM • ZIDON * THE PHILISTINES * THE TRIBES • MOUNT
EPHRAIM
Joshua
To the Jews, the first five books of the Bible ("The Law") make up
the first of the three grand divisions of the Old Testament. The sec-
ond division includes twenty-one books that together make up "the
Prophets." Of these, the first six, which are primarily historical, are "the
early Prophets" and, the Book of Joshua, named for the general
whose actions dominate the events it describes, is the first.
However, Joshua is made up of the same sources as the five books of
the Law, was put into final written form at the same time, apparently,
by the same priestly groups, and brings the theme of the first five
books to a climax. There is thus plenty of justification in treating the
first six books (the Hexateuch) as a unit. (The rabbinical tradition
that Joshua himself wrote the book can be ignored.)
The Book of Joshua describes an idealized version of the conquest
of Canaan— a conquest that brings to a triumphant climax God's prom-
ise of Canaan to the descendants of Abraham, as described in Genesis.
The Israelite army, under unified leadership, is pictured as conquer-
ing the entire land in a brilliant set of campaigns. Actually, as would
appear from other evidence in the Bible itself, the conquest was far
more disorganized, gradual, and imperfect than that. Still, the key
incidents in Joshua, though made neat and glossy by priestly piety at
the time of the Exile (some seven centuries after the events described
in Joshua), may well reflect traditions that in turn represent actual
events.
V i 1 u\ i' 1 — r
• \e MITT/TE EMPIRE \»
The Conquest of Canaan
210
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jericho
The Book of Joshua begins at the moment of the death of Moses,
with Joshua ben Nun, who, until then, had been Moses' military aide,
promoted to commander in chief. It is after Joshua that the book is
named, of course.
The City of Jericho
At once, Joshua made preparations to launch an offensive into Ca-
naan.
Joshua 2:1. And Joshua . . . sent out of Shittim two men to spy
secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho . . .
Jericho was a fortified town in the Jordan valley, five miles west of
the Jordan itself and some fifteen miles northeast of Jerusalem. It is
situated 850 feet below sea level and shares the semitropical tempera-
tures of the Jordan valley generally.
Jericho is a very ancient populated site and there are signs of a
town having existed there prior to 5000 b.c. The city faced by Joshua
may have been the third located on the site; the first two each having
in its turn been destroyed.
City-dwelling is one of the key symptoms of what we might call
JOSHUA
211
civilization (the very word "civilization" comes from the Latin word
for "city-dweller"; that is, "citizen"). To build a city, even a simple
one out of dried mud that takes up no more room all told than a
modern city block, requires a certain level of technology and social co-
operation. It is awesome to think that Canaan had already seen three
thousand years of civilization at least at the time that Abraham en-
tered.
It may have been much more than that. Older cities have been found
in the Fertile Crescent. In 1966, archaeologists from the University of
Toronto reported finding a site in the region of the upper Euphrates
containing houses that must have been built as long ago as 8500
B.C. In comparison with such a date, the pyramids are modern struc-
tures, and Abraham almost a contemporary.
The Jericho that Joshua faced was well fortified indeed; the ruins
believed to be Canaanite Jericho have walls twelve to fourteen feet
thick. The spies, however, discovered morale within the town to be
disastrously low. They had no trouble finding refuge with a harlot
named Rahab who was willing to betray the town in exchange for
safety during the inevitable sack. She reported:
Joshua 2:9. . . . your terror is fallen upon us, and , . . all the in-
habitants of the land faint because of you.
When this news was brought back to Joshua, he must have felt
confident that with the defenders disheartened and with a "fifth col-
umn" within the town, he had only to attack. He made ready to do
just that.
Gilgal
Joshua ordered the Israelite army out of Shittim, an encampment
some five miles east of Jordan. Marching westward, he crossed the
Jordan (which parted for him, according to the Biblical story, as the
Sea of Reeds did for Moses). Joshua ordered that twelve stones be
taken up from the temporarily dry bed of the Jordan.
Joshua 4:19. And the people . . . encamped in Gilgal in the east
border of Jericho.
Joshua 4:20. And those twelve stones, which they took out of the
Jordan, did Joshua pitch in Gilgal.
212
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The word fflgal means "a circle of stones" and there are several
places with that name mentioned in the Bible. A circle of large stones
had religious significance to the men of the Stone Age, and such circles
can be found in many places. The most famous and largest such
circle still surviving— at least in part— is at Stonehenge in England. The
Stonehenge circle is believed now to have served as a primitive calen-
dar for the dating of such phenomena as lunar eclipses, but such is the
close connection between astronomy and religion in primitive cultures
that it is easy to believe that it served a religious purpose at the same
time.
The best-known Gilgal in Canaan is this one mentioned in
Joshua 4:19, and it is usually located a few miles from Jericho in the
direction of Jordan. It is quite likely that the circle of stones that gave
the area its name dated back to Canaanite times and played a role in
Canaanite religion. The aura of sancity that lingered over it even after
the conquest would have been highly repugnant to Yahvism if it had
not been somehow assimilated to the priestly view of history. (This
ability to assimilate earlier notions is characteristic of successful reli-
gions. Islam assimilated the Kaaba and the holiness of Mecca from the
pagan past and Christianity assimilated the Christmas celebration from
pagan rites centering about the winter solstice.)
In this case, the circle of stones was associated with Joshua's crossing
of the Jordan. Nor does the fact that there were twelve stones neces-
sarily reflect the twelve tribes of Israel and therefore point to Israelite
origin. Through an astronomic accident, the cycle of seasons is nearly
twelve rimes as long as the cycle of the moon's phases; i.e., the year is
made up of twelve months. For this reason, the number twelve could
have enormous significance to an agricultural society. For instance, the
twelve signs of the zodiac are arranged to mark off the twelve months
as the sun makes its circuit of the sky in the course of a year. Indeed,
some try to relate the twelve tribes of Israel (why exactly twelve?) to
the twelve signs of the zodiac, but this may be going a bit far. Some
leeway must be allowed to coincidence, surely.
The Wall [of Jericho]
The siege of Jericho, as described in the Bible, was accompanied by
ritualistic parades about the city by armed men, with priests also cir-
JOSHUA
213
cling the city, bearing the ark of the covenant and blowing on trumpets.
This was repeated for six days and on the seventh day the city was
circled seven times (an indication of the small size of the city by mod-
ern standards). When that was done
Joshua 6:20. . . . the people shouted with a great shout, that the
wall fell down fiat . . .
If the Biblical account is taken literally, this is a miracle, but those
who seek natural explanations often suggest that it was an earthquake
that did the trick. If so, it was a most fortunately timed earthquake.
Actually, it is easy to suppose that the circling of the city had a
carefully designed tactical purpose. In the first place, it served to dis-
hearten the city's defenders still further, for the people of Jericho would
be nervous indeed at the somber and majestic spinning of a supernat-
ural net about the city. To the religiously devout of those days, the
invaders were calling on a perhaps powerful God who might be ex-
pected to do almost anything. The rulers of the city must have had
much trouble to keep the populace from surrendering on the spot.
Secondly, while the defenders watched in fascination at the slow
parading about the city, and listened to the awesome sound of the
trumpets, they might not have had time to see and hear the very
mundane activity of Joshua's sappers slowly undermining the city's
walls.
So Jericho fell. The city was sacked and, it was intended, destroyed
for all time.
Joshua 6:26. And Joshua [said] . . . Cursed be the man . . . that
riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho . . .
It has happened many times that cities have been destroyed and
their sites cursed by inveterate enemies. The best-known case out-
side the Bible is that of Carthage, the largest and strongest Canaanite
town in history (it was a Phoenician colony). Carthage had been en-
gaged in three colossal wars with Rome, spaced out over more than a
century, and at one point had come within a hairbreadth of defeating
Rome. When Rome finally took Carthage in 146 B.C., it utterly de-
stroyed the town and made provision that it never be rebuilt.
However, towns aren't built for no reason; they are usually placed at
the site of a sea harbor or river crossing, or in some position where they
control trade routes. The men of a properly positioned city become
21 4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
prosperous indeed and it is unlikely that such a position can be allowed
to stand empty forever, whatever the curse resting upon it.
Thus, a little over a century after its destruction, Carthage was built
again after all. Roman Carthage flourished for six centuries, almost as
long as the original Canaanite town had existed.
In the same way, the time came when Jericho was rebuilt, almost
upon the cursed site. In the reign of King Ahab, three centuries after
Joshua, a new Israelite Jericho arose and this survived and flourished
through New Testament times. This new Jericho was destroyed in
the course of invasions of Persians and Arabs in the seventh century
aj>. and still another Jericho was built by the Crusaders four centuries
after that.
This last Jericho still exists today, its Arabic name being the
recognizable Eriha. Its present population is about 2000.
Ai
After the fall of Jericho, Joshua continued the advance westward into
the heart of central Canaan.
Joshua 7:2. And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is . . .
on the east side of Bethel.
Ai was twelve miles northwest of Jericho and two miles further still
to the northwest was Bethel, the important city associated with Jacob's
dream of a ladder (see page 94). The two cities were either under
common rule or acted in alliance against the Israelites.
The invaders, overconfident at first, attacked with too few numbers
and were beaten off. Joshua therefore placed a contingent of men in
ambush, then made a more careful attack. This time, he pretended de-
feat and ordered his men to break and run. The men of Ai and Bethel,
overconfident in their turn, incautiously left their defenses to engage in
hot pursuit. At an appropriate moment, the Israelites turned to fight
and when the Canaanites attempted to return to their cities they
found those cities occupied by the Israelites who had been in am-
bush. Ai was sacked, bumed, and destroyed. Unlike Jericho, it was
never rebuilt.
(After this, the Bible recounts how the Israelites ascended Mount
Gerizim and Mount Ebal to perform the rituals of blessings and
JOSHUA 215
curses that Moses had called for before his death. It is not likely that
this could have been done at so early a stage of the conquest but only
after Canaan was under more or less complete control. However, the
Deuteronomist writers were anxious to show the manner in which the
Israelites had obeyed the dictates of Moses to the utmost— as an exam-
ple to their own times. They inserted the passage, therefore, at the
very earliest opportunity.)
Gibeon
The two victories of the Israelites over Jericho and over Ai put all
of Canaan into a state of urgent alarm. This was particularly true of
the city of Gibeon:
Joshua 9:3. And when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what
Joshua had done unto Jericho and to Ai,
Joshua 9:4. They did work wilily . . .
One could scarcely blame Gibeon. The city is located about seven-
teen miles west of Jericho and five miles south of Ai, so it was very
likely to be the next target of the Israelite army.
(Gibeon was a large city for its time but is now represented only
by a small village, with the recognizable Arabic name of El Jib. The
people of Gibeon were Hivites, one of the tribes routinely mentioned
in the early books of the Bible as destined to conquest by the Israelites.
The Hivites had also controlled Shechem in patriarchal times; see page
100.)
The Gibeonites worked "wilily" by putting on worn clothes and
taking moldy provisions with them. When they appeared before Joshua
at his camp in Gilgal, they represented themselves as ambassadors
from a far country. A treaty of peace was made with them and later,
when the deception was discovered, the treaty was honored and
Gibeon was not destroyed, nor were its people slaughtered. The
Gibeonites are described as having been reduced to slavery but this
may not actually have come to pass until Solomon's time three cen-
turies later.
It is difficult to see how the Gibeonites could have fooled Joshua in
this manner, or to believe that the fierce Israelite invaders would have
honored a treaty secured by deception. However, the writers of the
2l6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Book of Joshua, while describing an ideal and complete conquest of
Canaan, had to account for the known fact that some Canaanite
cities maintained a reasonable degree of independence into the time
of David and Solomon. 'Die tale of the trickery of Gibeon was one way
of doing so without detracting from Joshua's military glory.
Ajalon
The defection of Gibeon to the Israelites was another serious blow
to the Canaanites. The petty kingdoms of the south, under the leader-
ship of the large towns of Jerusalem and Hebron, formed a confeder-
acy against the common foe and marched against Gibeon in order to
force it back into the Canaanite ranks.
Joshua and his forces moved quickly to the relief of Gibeon and in a
great battle scattered and destroyed the Canaanites. It was during this
battle that one of the best known of the events described in the Bible
took place:
Joshua 10:12. Then spake Joshua . . . Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Joshua 10:13. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .
So the sun . . . hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Joshua 10:14. And there was no day like that before it or after
it . . .
Ajalon was a town about ten miles west of Gibeon.
The Bible describes this miraculous lengthening of the day to have
been carried through for the purpose of allowing the Israelites to
complete their victory. Interpreting them literally, men used these
verses twenty-five centuries after the time of Joshua to fight the Coper-
nican theory that the sun stood still and the earth moved about it.
After all, if Joshua has to order the sun "stand thou still" it must
imply that ordinarily the sun is moving. (This difficulty disappears if
one understands the principle of "relative motion," but it is not the
purpose of this book to consider the relationship of the Bible to science
and we will pass on.)
Following that battle, the Bible rapidly describes Joshua's sweep
through southern Canaan, in which he captures a series of cities in
the territory that was later to make up the territory of the tribe of
JOSHUA 217
Judah. Hebron itself was taken but no mention is made of Jerusalem
—and no wonder, for Jerusalem remained independent and Canaanite
until the days of David.
Merom
It was next the turn of the cities of northern Canaan to form a league
against Joshua.
Joshua 11:5. And when all these kings were met together, they
came and pitched together at the waters of Merom, to fight against
Israel.
The Jordan River, in its course, passes through or flows into three
enclosed bodies of water. The southernmost and largest is, of course,
the Dead Sea (see page 71). Some sixty-five miles north of the Dead
Sea is the Sea of Galilee, and about a dozen miles still farther north is
Lake Huleh. It is Lake Huleh which is usually taken to be the "waters
of Merom." It is the smallest of the three bodies of water associated
with the Jordan; it is only four miles long and three and a half miles
wide.
Zidon
At Merom, Joshua won another great victory and is described as lead-
ing the pursuit far (improbably far, in fact) to the north.
Joshua 11:8. And the Lord delivered them into the hand of Israel,
who smote them, and chased them unto great Zidon . . .
Zidon, or Sidon, is a city on the Mediterranean shore about 130
miles north of Jerusalem. The area about Zidon (Sidon), which nowa-
days makes up the coastal region of modern Lebanon, was inhabited by
Canaanites who were never conquered by the Israelites. Even at the
time of Israel's greatest power, the Canaanite cities of the Lebanese
shore, though in alliance with Israel, were not subjected to it.
At the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the largest and
most powerful of these north-Canaanite cities was Zidon (Sidon) and
the people of the entire region were therefore referred to in the Bible
as Zidonians or Sidonians.
The people of the region were famous for their manufacture of a
purple-red dye and made use of it in their own clothing to such an
extent that the color gave a name to the people and the land. It is
sometimes stated that the word "Canaan" is derived from an old Se-
mitic word meaning "purple." That may or may not be so but it is
quite clear that the Greek name for the region is derived from the color
of the dye. The Greek name is "Phoenicia" from their word mean-
ing "purple-red." It is as Phoenicians that the people are almost in-
variably known nowadays, though the word is not used in the Bible.
Nor should the familiar term "Phoenician" be allowed to obscure the
fact that the people we call Phoenicians were racially and culturally
indistinguishable from the Canaanites to the south.
At the time of Joshua, the Phoenicians may already have made their
greatest single contribution to culture— the invention of the alphabet.
Writing itself seems to have been invented in a number of different
places independently— in Sumeria, in China, in Central America. In
JOSHUA 219
all these cases, however, the symbols used were pictures of objects or
abstract markings representing words or concepts.
As far as we know the Phoenicians were the first (at some dim
period in their ancient history) to hit upon the idea of taking a few
markings and letting each stand for a single consonant. By putting
such markings (letters) together any word whatever could be produced;
and even an unfamiliar word could then be pronounced by sounding
the letters. The Phoenician alphabet was adopted by the various He-
brew tribes, including the Moabites and Israelites.
The Greeks adopted the Phoenician alphabet, too, allowing some
of the letters to stand for vowel sounds. (Greek myths clearly state that
the letters were introduced by the Phoenician prince, Cadmus, who
migrated to Greece and founded the Greek city of Thebes.)
Indeed, it is usually accepted that the alphabet (as distinct from
writing in general) was invented only once, and that all modern alpha-
bets, however odd some of them seem, are more or less distorted ver-
sions of the original Phoenician alphabet.
In the centuries immediately after the Israelite conquest, the impor-
tance of Sidon declined. The greatest days of Phoenicia were still
ahead; these, indeed, coinciding with the greatest days of Israel. In
those great days, however, leadership would fall to other cities, not
Sidon. Yet Sidon exists today as Saida, a Lebanese port with a popu-
lation of about 25,000. Its once-excellent harbor is half silted up and
is almost entirely useless. The town is surrounded by fruit orchards,
however, and it is the Mediterranean terminus of an oil pipeline
from Saudi Arabia.
The Philistines
Even under the idealized picture of the conquest as presented in
the Book of Joshua, there was no denying that sections of Canaan
remained unconquered. The chief of these included the section along
the southern coast of Canaan:
Joshua 13:2. This is the land that yet remaineth: all the borders
of the Philistines . . .
Joshua 13:3. . . . the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, the Esh-
halonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites . . .
220 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Philistia
The term "Philistine," which replaces the older term "CaphtorinT
(see page 199), may be the name the people of the region gave them-
selves. The Egyptian inscriptions speak of them as the "Pulesati."
In Hebrew, this became "Pelishtim" and in Greek "Philistinoi."
In historical records outside the Bible, the Philistines are first heard
of in the records of a new Egyptian dynasty, the 20th. After the death
of Memeptah in 1211 B.C., the great 19th dynasty of Rameses II
petered out with a few feeble Pharaohs of short reigns. The 20th
dynasty began with the reign of Setnakht, in 1192 B.C.
In 1190 B.C., Rameses III came to the throne and began a reign
of over thirty years. He was the last powerful native monarch of Egypt.
Under him the Peoples of the Sea were finally driven off and a certain
order and strength came back to Egypt. His influence was strong in
Asia but even he could not reverse the flow of history, and events in
Canaan continued without actual military interference on the Pha-
raoh's part. The Israelite conquest of Canaan seems to have taken
place in his reign.
Furthermore, his archives refer to the coming of the "Pulesati."
JOSHUA 221
They may have been a final contingent of the Peoples of the Sea,
driven out of Egypt proper by Rameses' armies, and forced to turn
to the Canaanite coast. Thus, the Philistines conquered the coast even
as the Israelites were conquering the interior. The two great adversaries
of the next several centuries had entered the land simultaneously.
The center of Philistine power was a sixty-mile stretch of the
southern shore of Canaan, a region which can be referred to as
"Philistia." The name persisted long after the great days of Philistine
power had passed. Herodotus, the Greek historian, writing in the
fifth century b.c, referred to the region as "Palaistina" and the name
was eventually applied by the Romans to all of Canaan. Even today,
"Palestine" has been used in naming the entire region once known as
Canaan.
Philistia was composed of the five cities whose inhabitants are listed
in Joshua 13:3— Ekron, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Gaza. They
seem to have been city-states, after the Greek fashion, with consider-
able independence, but capable of joining on occasion to fight a
common enemy.
The northernmost of the cities was Ekron. This was about twenty-
five miles west of Jerusalem and some nine miles from the sea. It
still exists as a village named Akir.
Twelve miles southwest of Ekron, and three miles from the sea,
is Ashdod, which was known as Azotos to the Greeks and survives
today as the village of Esdud with a population of about 3500. In
Philistia's prime, however, Ashdod was probably the most powerful
of the five cities.
Another twelve miles southwest is Ashkelon, the only one of the
five to be an actual seaport. The greatest event in its history came
at the time of the Crusades (when it was known as Askalon to
Europeans). In a.d. 1099, it was the site of a great victory of the
Crusaders over the Egyptians. In 1270, however, it was destroyed by
the Egyptian sultan of the time and it is a desolate site now.
Twelve miles east of Ashkelon is Gath, the most inland of the
Philistine cities. Its inhabitants are "Gittites." It is most famous for
the fact that it was the home city of the giant Goliath, whom the
young David slew in single combat. However, it is the most thoroughly
vanished of the Philistine cities and its exact site is uncertain.
Twelve miles south of Ashkelon and three miles from the sea
is Gaza, the most southerly of the Philistine cities. Of the five, it has
222
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
survived best and has had the most colorful history. It fell to Alexander
the Great (eight centuries after the time of Joshua) after a long and
desperate siege. It was an early Christian center and then a Moslem
center. Battles were fought over it by the Turks and by Napoleon.
It gained contemporary notoriety as a result of the war between
Israel and Egypt that followed the granting of independence to the
former in 1948. Egyptian forces occupied Gaza and have maintained
that occupation ever since. The Palestinian coast from Gaza to Egypt,
about twenty-five miles long and an average of five miles deep, came to
be known as the "Gaza strip." It was filled with Arab refugees from
Israel, who were not resettled but kept in place as a political maneuver
in order that enmity between Israel and the Arab world be exacerbated.
Gaza's normal population is about 80,000 but with the addition of the
refugees, well over 200,000 people filled it. The Gaza strip was taken by
Israel in the course of the Six-day War in 1967.
The Tribes
Despite the admitted incompleteness of the conquest, the Book of
Joshua goes on to describe the allotment of land in Canaan to each
of the tribes, according to the instructions Joshua is recorded as having
received from God.
Joshua 13:7. Now therefore divide this land for an inheritance
unto the nine tribes, and the half tribe of Manasseh.
Almost all the rest of the Book of Joshua is given over to a pains-
taking account of the division of the land. It makes for very dull
reading but it takes the place of a map in modern books and un-
doubtedly represents the situation as it arose out of the numerous
frictions and settlements between the tribes in the days before the
monarchy when they were in uneasy alliance, or in even uneasier strife.
Two of the tribes, Reuben and Gad, together with part of the
tribe of Manasseh, had already received grants east of the Jordan (see
page 191). West of the Jordan, in Canaan proper, Judah received the
southernmost portion, its territory stretching as far north as Jerusalem.
South of Judah were some desert hamlets that made up the allotment
of the disappearing tribe of Simeon.
SUtni
TV
uuklon)
' ' pikartfJliiSr' z: % $ ash an
A^'/uA^AuY'f' m ^ MANASWH I
*— Hnp-i
/The
(JreatSeA
(Mtditermutn Sea)
Deri
fc^fc*. issacharJ
W- tor''
5AlTf'REUBgN£
Aim
The Twelve Tribes
22 4
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Across central Canaan, centered in Shechem, was the remainder
of Manasseh. Between Manasseh and Judah lay Dan on the coast,
and Ephraim and Benjamin inland. Benjamin included Jericho and
Gibeon. North of Manasseh was Asher along the coast and, inland,
Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali, going from south to north.
It is important to realize the small size of the allotments. Benjamin,
the smallest of the tribes, occupied a territory of about three hundred
square miles. This is about as large as the area of the five boroughs
of New York City, and considerably smaller than the area of the city
of Los Angeles.
All these tribal boundaries were idealized versions referred back
in time from the situation as it existed in the period of the mon-
archy. They could not have existed in the form given at the time of
the conquest. Jerusalem was assigned to Judah, for instance, but that
town was not conquered by Israelites until the time of David. Philistia
was divided between Judah and Dan, but Philistia was not conquered
until David's time, too. The tribe of Asher was awarded much of the
Phoenician coast which it never, in actual fact, controlled.
The tribe of Levi received no actual land grant. Its central role was
that of serving as a priesthood and for that purpose it was considered
enough that its members be granted a number of towns scattered
through the various tribal areas.
Mount Ephraim
The Book of Joshua ends with the death of the secular and religious
leaders of the Israelites of the period: Joshua and Eleazar (the latter
being the son of Aaron and the nephew of Moses).
Joshua 24:30. And they buried him [Joshua] in ... mount
Ephraim . . .
Joshua 24:33. And Eleazar, the son of Aaron died; and they
buried him in a hill ... in mount Ephraim.
There is a line of hills running down the length of Canaan be-
tween the coastal plain and the plain of the Jordan. That portion
which lies in the territory of Ephraim is called Mount Ephraim. The
JOSHUA
22 5
reference does not seem to be to a particular peak but, as we would
perhaps say today, to "the Ephraim hills," or "the Ephraim highlands."
With the end of the Book of Joshua, we can consider Canaan as
essentially Israelite territory, even if not completely so. Instead of
Canaan, the territory will now be referred to as Israel.
7. JUDGES
JUDAH AND SIMEON • THE JUDGES * ASHTAROTH • OTHNIEL • EHUD " HAZOR •
DEBORAH « MOUNT TABOR • THE SONG OF DEBORAH ■ JEZREEL • SUCCOTH •
GIDEON AND ABIMELECH • MIZPEH • SHIBBOLETH • NAZARITE ' ZORAH '
DELILAH « DAGON * DAN * GIBEAH * MIZPEH [BENJAMIN] * JABESH-CILEAD
Judah and Simeon
The Book of Judges, which describes the history of Israel im-
mediately after the conquest, is rather miscellaneous in nature and
is apparently a collection of ancient documents, not necessarily very
closely related to each other. Although signs of editing are clear,
the tale is not smoothed into a unified and pretty whole as in the
Book of Joshua. So much is left that is unedifying and unflattering
to Israel that one is forced to trust the Book of Judges to be a more
accurate reflection of secular history than the Book of Joshua can be.
The first chapter of Judges deals with the conquest from a viewpoint
entirely different from that in Joshua. Here there is no single army
under unified command sweeping to a quick, complete victory. Rather,
there is the picture of disunited tribes, each struggling alone against
the enemy and not doing too well at it, in many cases.
Thus, no mention is made of Joshua's strenuous campaign through
the south. Instead, the conquest of the area about Hebron is the task
of the tribe of Judah in alliance with Simeon:
Judges 1:3. And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up
with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites;
and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot . . .
Although the forces of Judah (the weak tribe of Simeon probably
did not make a significant contribution) are described as uniformly
The Twelve Tribes
228
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
successful, talcing even Jerusalem and the Philistine cities of Gaza,
Ashkelon, and Ekron, the victories were nevertheless limited. The
highland areas, more sparsely settled, were abandoned to the Israelites.
In the sense that these areas were previously under the domination of
cities such as Jerusalem and Gaza, territory appertaining to those cities
were annexed and the cities might then be glowingly described as
having been conquered. The actual cities themselves and the tightly
controlled lowland areas about them could not be taken, however, and
the Bible makes the reason for that clear:
Judges 1:19. .. . he [Judah] drave out the inhabitants of the
mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, be-
cause they had chariots of iron.
Until 3500 B.C. mankind used for its tools only those materials it
could find at hand; materials that did not require sophisticated chem-
ical treatment— bone, hide, wood, and stone, for instance. Stone has
survived best through the ages and we know most about the stone tools
used in ancient times. We refer to the period therefore as the "Stone
Age."
Small nuggets of metals which occur free in nature (gold, silver,
copper, meteoric iron) were occasionally found, and perhaps used as
ornaments. It was not till about 3500 b.c. that the Egyptians learned
how to smelt appropriate ores and obtain copper in quantity. By
3000 b.c. copper was in widespread use throughout the Fertile Cres-
cent.
Copper itself is not hard enough to serve well as tools or weapons.
It was soon discovered, however, that if tin ores were added to copper
ores, a copper-tin alloy called bronze could be produced and this
is much harder than copper.
By 2500 b.c. bronze weapons were coming into use and the Fertile
Crescent was entering the "Bronze Age." A bronze spearpoint was
sharper and tougher than one made of flint and could penetrate
leather shields with no trouble. Bronze shields could, on the other
hand, easily turn and blunt stone weapons. A bronze-armored army
could, without difficulty, defeat a larger army fighting with stone and
leather.
By 2000 b.c. the Bronze Age was penetrating Europe, and the
battles of the Trojan War, as carefully described by Homer, were
JUDGES 229
fought by warriors with bronze armor, bronze shields, and bronze
weapons.
Bronze was an expensive material, however. Copper ores were rare,
though sufficient quantities could at first be obtained from the Sinai
Peninsula and from Cyprus. (Indeed, the word "copper" is supposed
to be derived from "Cyprus.") Tin ores were even rarer. Phoenician
trading vessels ventured long distances for the tin ores need^ 1 ^
manufacture bronze and reached the "Tin Islands." This is usually
supposed to be the peninsula of Cornwall in southwestern England,
together with some islands off its coast. It is interesting to think ti...c
Canaanites were in England thousands of years before the Romans.
Iron is much more common than either copper or tin and, under
the proper treatment, is much harder than bronze. Iron, in other words,
is at once cheaper and better than bronze. Why was it not used? The
answer to that is that iron ores are not as easily smelted as are copper
and tin ores; iron ores require hotter fires and more complicated
metallurgical processes.
The first successful method for smelting iron ore was developed
somewhere in or near Hittite territory about 1400 b.c. (while the
Israelites were in Egyptian slavery). The new technique, which gave
birth to the "Iron Age," did not come in time to save the Hittites but
it survived the destruction of the Hittite Empire. It spread slowly
through the Fertile Crescent and into Europe.
At the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the use of iron in
restricted quantities had come to the more sophisticated towns, but
desert tribes were still innocent of its use. The Israelites, therefore,
entered Canaan at the dividing line between the Bronze Age and
the Iron Age, and had to fight iron with bronze. What they could do
by sheer numbers and energy, they did. But anyone fighting iron
with bronze reaches a quick limit to conquest. The men of Judah
found this out the hard way.
So, apparently, did the men of the other Israelite tribes. Through
the rest of the chapter, the failure of each tribe to complete the con-
quest by capturing the larger cities in their regions is carefully de-
tailed. The tribe of Benjamin did not take Jerusalem; the tribe of
Manasseh did not take Bethshea; the tribe of Ephraim did not take
Gezer; the tribe of Zebulun did not take Kitron; the tribe of Asher
did not take Zidon; and so on.
230
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Judges
Under the circumstances, the Israelite occupation of Canaan could
scarcely have served as the opening of an immediate period of pros-
perity. Clinging precariously to the highlands, disunited, technologically
backward, it was inevitable that the Israelites remain in subjection
to one foreign power after another.
Only occasionally could one tribe or another gain a degree of
freedom through the action of some competent military leader.
Judges 2:16. Nevertheless the Lord raised up judges, which de-
livered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.
The word "judge" is here used in the sense of a "ruler" since in
early cultures, the chief function of a tribal ruler in peacetime was
that of judging disputes and reaching, it was to be hoped, some just
decision. This had the crucial purpose of preventing internal feuds
and disputes that would weaken the entire population in the face
of some always waiting outer enemy.
Twelve judges are considered to have held sway over the tribes
between the conquest of Canaan and the establishment of the mon-
archy. This number is arrived at rather shakily, but it has the signif-
icance of matching the number of Israelite tribes so that later tradition
clung to it.
It was often customary in the past to suppose that each judge held
sway over all Israel and that the periods of their power followed one
another. If we assume this and carefully follow the references to
periods of time (usually expressed in round numbers that are clearly
not intended to be exact), the period of time covered by the Book
of Judges works out to be 410 years.
The period ends with the accession of Saul to the throne and that
event can be dated with fair confidence at 1028 b.c. The 410-year
period for the Book of Judges would then place the conquest of
Canaan around 1440 b.c. and the Exodus about 1480 b.c.
This is quite impossible. The Exodus and conquest could not con-
ceivably have taken place in the fifteenth century b.c.
Instead, we must place the most likely date for the Exodus at about
1200 b.c. and the death of Joshua at about 1150 b.c. This means that
JUDGES 231
the period of time covered by the Book of Judges cannot be more than
125 to 150 years.
To account for this short period, one need only assume that
the judges did not rule all Israel and did not serve consecutively. The
Book of Judges is a collection of sagas produced by each tribe
separately with some editor or editors weaving them together into a
single tale without bothering to detail the chronology. Under such
circumstances, it would seem reasonable that the various judges ruled
over single tribes or small groups of tribes and that two or three might
flourish simultaneously.
At this low point in Israelite history— from 1150 to 1028 B.C.— it
was all the Israelites could do to fight off the petty powers of the
western half of the Fertile Crescent. They were fortunate indeed in
that they had to face no great empires. Against a man like Thutmose
III or Hammurabi, their judges would not have saved them.
In Egypt, Rameses III, the last of the strong native Pharaohs, died
in 1158 B.C., almost simultaneously with Joshua. His successors were
eight Pharaohs, all named Rameses, who were weak and of little
importance. In 1075 B.C., the 21st dynasty began to rule and these
consisted of the high priests in the distant city of Thebes. During the
entire period of the judges, Egypt might as well have been on another
planet.
In the east, the nation of Assyria was slowly gathering strength.
The region of Assyria, on the upper Tigris, had developed a civiliza-
tion in the earliest times. It had been part of the empire of Sargon
of Agade (see page 50) but in later times, when the Tigris-Euphrates
region was fragmented into city-states and Sumeria was dying, it
went through a period of prosperity and strength. In the patriarchal
period, Assyria was a land of wealthy merchants.
It fell under the domination of Hammurabi, but recovered its inde-
pendence and by 1500 b.c. formed one of the group of states con-
tending for control of the Fertile Crescent. These rivals were the
Egyptian Empire, the Hittite Empire, the Mitannian Empire, and
the Assyrian Empire. The Hittites badly weakened Mitanni and were
in turn badly weakened by Egypt. When Egyptian power in Asia
began to decay under Ikhnaton, Assyria became the strongest nation
in the area.
In 1235 B,c -> Tukulti-Ninurta I became king of Assyria and he was
still reigning at the time of the Exodus. Under cover of the havoc being
2 3 2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
created by the barbarian migrations of the time, Assyria absorbed what
was left of Mitanni and then conquered Babylonia, extending its power
to the Persian Gulf. Tukulti-Ninurta became extolled in legend as
the first conquering Assyrian king and serves as the model for the
Biblical Nimrod (see page 52) and the Greek Ninus in consequence.
However, Assyria was not yet ready for the domination of the entire
Fertile Crescent. Tukulti-Ninurta was followed by weak successors
under whom Babylonia regained its independence. The Assyrian king
Tiglath-Pileser I, who reigned from 1116 to 1093 B.C., again pushed
the land toward a period of power, but he too was followed by weak
successors who had to contend with the onslaughts of a new group of
nomads, the Aramaeans, from the north.
In other words, during the period of the judges, the day of Egypt
was over, and the day of Assyria had not yet quite come. In the
gap of rime between the two, the Israelites were able to develop against
the opposition of only such enemies as they could (just barely) handle.
Ashtaroth
The later editor of the Book of Judges must have found it hard to
account for sufferings and defeats of the Israelites in view of the
tradition of divine providence that surrounded the tales of the Exodus
and conquest under Moses and Joshua.
His pious explanation of the later events was that defeat and en-
slavement were punishments visited upon the Israelites for succumb-
ing to the lure of Canaanite religious rites.
Judges 2:11. And the children of Israel did evU . . . and served
Baalim.
• • • •
Judges 2:13. . . . and Ashtaroth.
The "-im" suffix is the regular Hebrew plural so that "Baalim"
should be translated "Baals" (and is so translated in the Revised
Standard Version ) . Ashtaroth, like Baalim, is also a plural. The singular
form in this case is Ashtoreth and this is the feminine equivalent of a
Baal. Just as Baal ("Lord") is the general title for a male Semitic deity,
so Ashtoreth ("Lady") is the general title for a female Semitic deity.
JUDGES 233
Ashtoreth is, actually, a distortion of the correct name, Ashtarte.
The distortion is caused by pious editors who later substituted the
vowel sounds of bosheth ("shame") into the name; doing as they
had done in converting "Melech" to "Molech" (see page 162).
The most famous Ashtarte was the one worshiped in Tyre, the
chief Phoenician city in the time of the monarchy. Her worship was
to have an important influence on the kingdom of Israel. The version
of her name used in Greek mythology is Astarte. The chief of the
Babylonian goddesses bore another version of the name— Ishtar.
Othniel
Over and over again, the refrain of the Book of Judges is sounded.
The Israelites serve other gods and are punished by subjection to a
foreign tyrant. They repent and a judge arises to free them.
The first case arises almost immediately after the conquest.
Judges 3:7. And the children of Israel did evil . . . and served
Baalim and the groves.
Judges 3:8. . . . [and] the Lord . . . sold them into the hand
of Chushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia . . .
Judges 3:9. And when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord,
the Lord raised up a deliverer . . . Othniel the son of Kenaz,
Caleb's younger brother.
The Hebrew word translated in Judges 3:7 as "groves" is asheroth,
the plural form of the word asherah. The term is left untranslated in
the various modem versions of the Bible, for Asheroth is another
term used to refer to female Canaanite deities. The confusion arises
from the fact that the word is also used to indicate a pole or wooden
pillar— a relic of ancient tree worship, perhaps — which was considered
sacred to the goddess. From a pole to a tree to a grove is not a
difficult progression. It may be that Asherah originated as still another
form of Ashtarte.
"Mesopotamia" is the translation of "Aram-Naharaim," the district
where Haran is located, so that the invasion may be viewed as coming
from the north. There is no chance of locating the region specifically
for Chushan-rishathaim (or Cushan-rishathaim) means, in Hebrew,
"the Cushite of double wickedness." This was undoubtedly not the
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
true name of the individual, but rather a scornful title given him by
the Biblical writers. Who he might really be is therefore impossible to
tell.
If the invasion came from the north, one must wonder why it is
Othniel who leads the reaction to it. Othniel is a folk hero of Judah
and the conqueror of Hebron according to Judges 1:13, and there-
fore a dweller in the extreme south. Either Chushan-rishathaim
conquered all of Canaan down to Judah, or else Othniel acted as
commander in chief of the united tribes. Neither seems very likely.
Possibly the confusion is the result of a telescoping of two traditions,
a northern and a southern.
Ehud
The next invasion, after the Israelites had again fallen prey to
strange gods, is less puzzling.
Judges 3:12. . . . Eg/on the king of Moab . . .
Judges 3:13. . . . gathered unto him the children of Ammon and
Amalek, and went and smote Israel, and possessed the city of palm
trees.
The picture is that of a federation of Trans-Jordanian Hebrew tribes
formed under the leadership of Moab. These then repeated
Joshua's tactic of striking across the Jordan River in the direction
of Jericho ("the city of palm trees"). Jericho itself no longer existed
but the confederacy occupied the surrounding area, which now
formed the territory of the tribe of Benjamin.
The tide was turned when Ehud, a left-handed Benjamite, sent to
Eglon with tribute, managed to stab him to death. (Presumably the
left-handed use of a dagger hidden on the right side, rather than on
the customary left, caught the king by surprise.) In the confusion that
followed, an Israelite attack succeeded in driving the Moabites back
across the Jordan.
Hazor
Othniel and Ehud are the first and second judges, and following
the tale of Ehud is the barest mention of a third judge, Shamgar, who
JUDGES 235
apparently won a victory over the Philistines. Following that comes a
circumstantial tale of a major danger.
Judges 4:2. And the Lord sold them [the Israelites] into the
hand of ]abin . . . that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose
host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth . . .
Hazor
Judges 4:3. . . . he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and
twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
Hazor is located in far northern Canaan, in the territory assigned
to the tribe of Naphtali. It is about four miles southwest of Lake
Huleh. Harosheth is some forty miles southwest, near the sea, in the
territory of Zebulun.
One gets the picture of a league of northern Canaanite cities, un-
conquered thanks to their iron-equipped armies, laying tribute on the
northern Israelite tribes.
This situation clearly indicates the manner in which the account
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
given in the Book of Joshua is a heavily idealized version of the con-
quest. It had been a King Jabin of Hazor who, according to the
Book of Joshua, had led the northern coalition against the Israelites,
and had been disastrously defeated by the waters of Merom (see page
217). Joshua followed up that victory energetically:
Joshua 11:10. . . . ]oshua . . . took Hazor and smote the king
thereof with the sword . . .
Joshua 11:11. And they smote all the souls that were therein,
utterly destroying them . . . and he burnt Hazor with fire.
Could Joshua have actually won so great a victory? If so, how account
for the phenomenal comeback of Hazor, which within a few decades
was back in existence under another King Jabin and strong enough
to control northern Israel. Or was the Canaanite defeat, to be de-
scribed a bit later, anachronistically pushed back into Joshua's time?
Deborah
For a period of rime after the conquest, Ephraim maintained its
position as the leading tribe. Even if the over-all leadership of Joshua
of Ephraim was a later idealization, it can nevertheless be taken
that he won important victories even if he only led the Ephraimites.
The glamour of Joshua's victories would extend forward over the
generations and give Ephraim a jealously guarded claim to military
pre-eminence.
In any united action of the tribes it would be taken for granted
that Ephraim would supply the initiative and leadership; and failure
on the part of other tribes to recognize this would result in civil
war, as actually happened on at least one important occasion. (This
is rather similar to the experience in Greece five or six centuries later,
when any united action by the Greek city-states was almost automat-
ically undertaken only under the leadership of Sparta.)
Ephraimite hegemony must have been most marked over the neigh-
boring tribes of Benjamin to the south and Manasseh to the north.
This may be reflected in the tradition that all three were descended
from those sons of Jacob who had Rachel for a mother (Joseph and
Benjamin). Ephraim, in other words, headed the close alliance of the
JUDGES 237
"Rachel tribes," and exerted its influence more informally beyond
that central nucleus.
The term "Mount Ephraim" can be applied specifically to the
hill country of Ephraim, but it can, in view of this, also be applied
more loosely to the extension of the highland area north and south
of Ephraim's immediate territory. This is all the more reasonable
since the Book of Judges was put into final form after the time of the
existence of the northern kingdom of Israel, which was so dominated
by the tribe of Ephraim that Ephraim was used, poetically, as the
name of the kingdom. "Mount Ephraim" would therefore naturally
be used sometimes for the highlands of the north tribal area generally.
Thus, after Ehud the Benjamite had assassinated Eglon of Moab,
he retired to the Israelite strongholds in the hills:
Judges 3:27. . . .he blew a trumpet in the mountain of Ephraim,
and the children of Israel went down with him from the mount . . .
It is not necessary to conclude that Ehud had to move into the
territory of Ephraim proper in order to send out messages to rally
troops. He could have done so from the western section of Benjamin.
Nevertheless, it is natural to suppose that the Ephraimites must have
joined him.
As is often the case when one member of a loose confederation
is the recognized military leader, aggression is allowed to continue as
long as the territory of that leader is not directly threatened. Thus,
in Greece, it was often difficult to get Sparta to take action as long
as the Peloponnesus was not invaded. Similarly, Ephraim was slow to
act against the Moabites as long as it was only Benjamite territory
that was occupied, and they were equally slow to act as long as Jabin
of Hazor and his general Sisera confined their activity to placing the
northern tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun under tribute.
There may at this time have been some sort of internal difficulties
in Ephraim that we have no knowledge of, for the Rachel tribes seem
to be led by a woman— a most unusual situation.
Judges 4:4. And Deborah, a prophetess . . . judged Israel at that
time.
Judges 4:5. And she dwelt . . . between Ramah and Bethel in
mount Ephraim . . .
238 ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The area between Ramah and Bethel was Benjamite territory
and here is an example of the broader use of the term "mount
Ephraim."
Mount Tabor
But as Canaanite hegemony in the north grew more menacing (or
as the political situation within Ephraim became more settled), Deb-
orah prepared to take action:
Judges 4:6. And she sent and called Barak . . . of Kedesh-
naphtali and said unto him ... Go and draw toward mount Tabor,
and take with thee ten thousand men of . . . Naphtali and . . .
Zebulun
Judges 4:7. And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera,
the captain of Jabin's army . . .
Kedesh, seven miles northwest of Hazor, was the most important
Israelite town in Naphtali (and was called Kedesh-naphtali to dif-
ferentiate it from other towns of the name). Presumably, it was the
center of Israelite resistance and Barak was a guerrilla leader keeping
the hopes of Israel alive. Now Deborah was urging him to combine
the forces available to him and risk it in a pitched battle on Mount
Tabor.
Mount Tabor is located at the southern border of Naphtali, where
it meets the borders of Zebulun and Issachar. It is about twenty-five
miles southwest of Hazor, forming a convenient rallying point for
troops from several tribes, and an easily defensible area where they
might gather and prepare. (Mount Tabor is only about five miles
southeast of Nazareth, which over a thousand years later was to be the
home of Jesus.)
The Kishon River, about fifty miles long, flows northwestward
through northern Palestine, through the territory of Issachar and
Zebulun, into what is now called the Bay of Acre. A northern tributary
has its origin just west of Mount Tabor.
Barak was reluctant to risk his forces in the uncertainty of a pitched
battle without assurance of firm Ephraimite support (just as the
Greek city-states in later centuries were reluctant to oppose some
foreign enemy without assurance of Spartan help).
JUDGES 239
Judges 4:8. And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me,
then I will go; but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.
Deborah gave the necessary assurance and at the head of the largest
alliance and the strongest Israelite army since the time of Joshua,
Barak defeated Sisera. Sisera was killed in flight by a woman to whom
he turned for help, and the Israelite army continued the war against
Jabin until Hazor was taken and destroyed, this time for good.
The Song of Deborah
The fifth chapter of the Book of Judges is notable for the "Song
of Deborah," considered one of the most ancient portions of the
Bible:
Judges 5:1. Then sang Deborah and Barak ... on that day . . .
It was a paean of triumph at the victory over Sisera and in it
Deborah lists the tribes of the coalition that took part in the victory.
Ephraim and its satellites, Benjamin and Manasseh, are, of course,
listed first:
Judges 5:14. Out of Ephraim was there a root of them . . . ;
after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down
governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the
writer.
Judges 5:15. And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah . . .
Judges 5:18. Zebulun and Naphtali were a people that jeoparded
their lives . . .
Machir is, apparently, an alternate name for Manasseh. Perhaps
the tribe of Manasseh is actually the union of two tribes, one of
which was called Machir (a term more often used for that portion of
the tribe that held territory east of the Jordan). The Bible solves the
problem by making Machir a son of Manasseh.
Genesis 50:23. . . . the children also of Machir, the son of
Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph's knees.
240
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Here the implication is that Machir was the only son of Manasseh,
so that both Manasseh and Machir could serve as eponymous ancestors
for the entire tribe.
Six of the tribes, then, took part in the battle: Ephraim, Benjamin,
Manasseh, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali, forming a solid bloc along
the interior of northern Canaan.
Four of the tribes are singled out for contempt at not having
joined:
Judges 5:15. . . . For the divisions of Reuben, there were great
thoughts of heart.
Judges 5:16. Why abodest thou among the sheepfolds, to hear
the bleatings of the flocks? . . .
Judges 5:17. Gilead [Gad] abode beyond fordan: and why did
Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore . . .
The abstentions were reasonable after all. Asher on the northern
shore facing the Phoenicians, and Dan on the southern shore facing
the Philistines may well have had ample troubles at home without
looking for enemies elsewhere. Reuben, which stood irresolute and
finally decided to remain at home, was having similar trouble with
Moab. Indeed, this chapter is the last in the Bible to mention Reuben
as a tribe, so it had not long to endure. Gad was the only strong
tribe that might have joined but didn't, and it may have felt secure
behind the river and saw no need to risk lives.
Notice that the tribe of Judah, and its satellite Simeon, are not men-
tioned. It is quite possible that during the period of the judges, Judah
was not part of the Israelite coalition and may not even have been
recognized as part of Israel.
Indeed, it was only for a century, under the kings Saul, David, and
Solomon, that Judah was united with Israel. Under Saul (an Isra-
elite), Judah was in rebellion; and under David and Solomon (Jude-
ans), Israel was restive. After Solomon, the two portions of the land
fell apart and remained apart for the rest of their history.
Jezreel
In addition to the Canaanite enemy within the land, the Israelites
were subjected to periodic raids by the nomads from beyond the Jor-
JUDGES 241
dan— the Midianites and Amalekites. The tribe of Manasseh, which
bordered on the central Jordan, suffered particularly from these raids
into Israel, and the defense against the nomads was undertaken by
Gideon, a member of that tribe. His opportunity came with the next
raid:
Jezreel
Judges 6:33. Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites . . .
gathered together, and went over, and pitched in the valley of Jez-
reel.
A river flows into the Jordan from the west about fifteen miles south
of Lake Galilee and cuts through the line of hills that runs down the
center of Israel. That is the valley of Jezreel and it represents a natural
opening into the heart of northern Israel for raiders from the east.
The valley of Jezreel is in the territory of Issachar but Gideon did
not intend to let Issachar fight alone:
Judges 6:35. And he sent messengers throughout all Manasseh . . .
and . . . unfo Asher, and unto Zebulun, and unto Naphtali; and
they came up to meet them.
It was almost the same confederacy that fought the Hazorites under
Sisera, but with the vital omission of Ephraim.
2 4 2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
We can only guess why Gideon omitted Ephraim, but perhaps it
was something like this. If Ephraim joined the coalition it would
only be as the leader and they, in their military pride, would insist on
a direct frontal attack. Gideon had what he thought was a better plan
and to carry it through he needed to retain control in his own hands—
which meant omitting Ephraim. His plan, he felt, would work against
a nomad host, stronger in numbers than in discipline and organiza-
tion.
He led a small band by night to the heights overlooking the Midi-
anite encampment and attacked suddenly, with noise and lights, rather
than with arms. Roused, shaken, not knowing what was going on, con-
vinced that a formidable host had surrounded them, the Midianites
fled in panic back to the Jordan, where the main army was waiting to
destroy them at the fords.
Ephraim, having been notified with deliberate tardiness by Gideon
and directed to the fords, participated in the battle at the Jordan, but
it was plain to them that the successful strategy was Gideon's.
They were humiliated and angered. Not only had Gideon deliber-
ately failed to recognize Ephraim's leadership, but he had then gone
on to head a coalition and win a victory without them. Civil war was
threatened between those who followed Gideon and an annoyed and
jealous Ephraim:
Judges 8:1. And the men of Ephraim said unto him [Gideon],
Why hast thou served us thus, that thou calledst us not, when
thou wentest out to fight with the Midianites? And they did chide
with him sharply.
Smoothly, Gideon suggested that the crucial point of the battle came
at the fords of the Jordan, where Ephraim had captured a number of
the Midianite leaders. His own role, a mere raid, he dismissed as quite
minor. The offended Ephraimites allowed themselves to be soothed and
civil war was averted.
Succoth
Gideon pursued the remnant of the Midianite army east of the Jor-
dan, in order to complete the victory. Partly, too, the pursuit of the
enemy was a matter of private vengeance, for Zebah and Zalmunna,
JUDGES 243
two Midianite leaders still at large, had been responsible (as it turned
out) for the death of Gideon's brothers.
In the course of the pursuit, Gideon passed through the territory of
the tribe of Gad, which was continuing its policy of isolation. It had
not joined the coalition against Jabin and Sisera and it had not
joined the coalition against the Midianites. (Since the Midianites
would have had to pass through Gadite territory to reach the Jordan on
their way into Israel, there is a strong possibility that Gad was worse
than neutral; that it did not oppose the Midianites and paid them trib-
ute in order that they might remain in peace while devastation fell on
the land west of the Jordan.)
Even after Gideon's victory, they temporized and sought the safety
of neutrality. When Gideon entered Succoth, on the Jabbok River
perhaps four miles east of the Jordan, and asked for supplies, he was
refused:
Judges 8:6. .. . the princes of Succoth said, Are the hands of
Zebah and Zalmunna now in thine hand, that we should give bread
unto thine army?
In other words, Gideon might yet be defeated and Succoth was not
going to risk retaliation by the Midianites. The nearby town of Penuel
(where Jacob had once wrestled with an angel) took the same attitude.
Gideon could do nothing about this at the time; the Midianites
came first. He caught up with the nomads at Karkor, the exact site of
which is unknown, but which may be some thirty miles east of the
Jordan (a deep eastward penetration for an Israelite army of the time).
Again Gideon won a complete victory, capturing the Midianite leaders
and eventually executing them.
He then took reprisal against the Gadites, destroying the fortifica-
tions of Penuel, and executing the leading men of Succoth.
Gideon and Abimelech
The victories of Gideon had been sufficiently dramatic to give him
the prestige required for kingship; that is, for hereditary rule.
Judges 8:22. Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou
over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also . . .
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Judges 8:23. And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over
you . . . The Lord shall rule over you.
This response was in accord with the views of the time at which the
Book of Judges reached its final form; that is, after the time of the
monarchy. The kings of Israel (and, to a lesser extent, of Judah) were
all too often strongly anti-Yahvist. The Yahvists were, in turn, anti-
monarchic, and this shows up in several places in the Bible.
Nevertheless, the chances are that Gideon did accept the kingship, if
not "of Israel" then at least of Manasseh. He certainly ruled as judge
in his lifetime and, after his death, the crucial test is whether his
power was hereditary. Apparently it was, for his sons succeeded him
to power. Again the power was just over Manasseh for only places in
Manasseh are mentioned in this portion of the Book of Judges.
The advantage of hereditary rule lies in the fact that the succession
can be made automatic, that it will pass from father to son (or to
some other close relative) according to some fixed rule. The land is
therefore not plunged into broils and civil war with the death of each
ruler.
For this to work well, those relatives who do not inherit the king-
dom should stand aside with good grace, but this did not always happen
in ancient monarchies. With royal polygamy practiced, there would be
large numbers of sons born of different mothers. The wives of the ha-
rem would intrigue for the succession of their own sons and the sons
themselves would seek factions within the kingdom. The result would
often be broils and civil wars anyway.
This was to be most clearly shown in Biblical history in the case of
Israel's greatest king, David, but a little foretaste is given now. Gideon
was a polygamist, and a fruitful one:
Judges 8:30. And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body
begotten; for he had many wives.
Judges 8:31. And his concubine that was in Shechem, she also
bare him a son whose name he called Abimelech.
It is interesting that "Abimelech" means "my father is king." The
"king" might be a reference to a god rather than to Gideon, so per-
haps it should not be taken too literally.
The question was which of Gideon's sons was to succeed him. In
this connection, Abimelech may have felt like an outsider. Shechem
JUDGES 24;
was still essentially a Canaanite city, worshiping a Canaanite god, Baal-
berith ("Lord of the covenant") and Abimelech as the son of a Ca-
naanite woman may have been scorned and rejected by his brothers.
In any case, he made a virtue of necessity and intrigued with his
mother's clan in Shechem, pointing out that they would fare better
under one of their own as king. They saw the point and financed his
next step, which was to hire a private army and use it to attack and
slaughter the other sons. Left in power, Abimelech assumed the king-
ship but retained it for only a short while before trouble started:
Judges 9:22. When Abimelech had reigned three yean enter
Israel,
Judges 9:23. ... an evU spirit [arose] between Abimelech and the
men of Shechem . . .
The Shechemites, disenchanted with Abimelech for some reason, re-
belled against him. Abimelech bloodily suppressed the Shechemite
rebellion and then went on to subdue other disaffected cities of Ma-
nasseh. He marched against Thebez (which is thought to be repre-
sented nowadays by a village named Tubas), about twelve miles north-
east of Shechem. He took the city but was killed in the process.
Thus ended the house of Gideon and the first brief attempt at es-
tablishing a monarchy in Israel.
Mizpeh
Deborah and Gideon may be counted as the fourth and fifth of the
judges, respectively. Two more, Tola and Jair (the sixth and seventh),
are briefly mentioned in a verse apiece and soon thereafter the scene
shifts to the Trans-Jordan.
While the tribe of Gad (Gilead) remained aloof from the troubles
of Israel proper, it did not dwell in complete peace, even if the mo-
mentary irruption of Gideon's Manassite army is discounted.
When the tribe of Gad had settled in its territory, it had displaced
the Ammonites, pushing them away from the Jordan valley and toward
the east. This was not accomplished peacefully, of course, and there
was continuing war between the Gadites and the Ammonites. The
climax of that war is described:
246 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Mizpeh
Judges 10:17. Then the children of Ammon were gathered to-
gether, and encamped in Gilead. And the children of Israel assem-
bled themselves together, and encamped in Mizpeh.
The exact site of Mizpeh is uncertain but it may have been some
twenty miles southeast of the town of Succoth, earlier mentioned in
connection with Gideon's raid across the Jordan. It was near the east-
em border of Gadite territory.
At the head of the Gadite army was Jephthah, who, in his eagerness
to win, vows, in case of victory, to sacrifice to God the first living thing
that emerges from his house upon his return home. Jephthah wins a
complete victory over the Ammonites and, on his return home, it is his
daughter and only child who emerges to greet him. Jephthah is forced,
in agony, to sacrifice her.
This tale of human sacrifice is so at odds with the rituals of Yahvism
that it is a matter of surprise that the later editors of the Book of
Judges allowed it to remain without some sign of disapproval. It is
often suggested that the tale is left unvarnished in an attempt to as-
JUDGES 247
simflate into Yahvism the ritual of a pagan festival. The stoiy con-
cludes:
Judges 11:39. . . . And it was a custom in Israel,
Judges 11:40. That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament
the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
There were well-known rites all over the ancient world celebrating
the death and subsequent rebirth of a god. This represented the annual
agricultural cycle: the death of crops in the winter and their rebirth in
the spring. It would be customary for women to bewail the death of
the god with great ceremony each year, and then to rejoice at the news
of the rebirth.
To deprive the women of their long-established custom would have
been difficult; to transfer it from a heathen god to the daughter of an
Israelite hero might have been easier.
Shibboleth
The victory of Jephthah displeased the Ephraimites, as Gideon's
victory had displeased them. The tribe of Gad, it seemed to Ephraim,
was attempting to take over the headship of Israel. Jephthah did not
succeed, as Gideon had, in mollifying the Ephraimites and this time
there was civil war.
The Ephraimite forces, with the self-confidence of a tribe considering
itself militarily supreme among the Israelites, promptly invaded Gad,
crossing the Jordan to do so.
Jephthah, in all probability, faded away before them, luring them
deeper into the country and farther from their bases, while he sent
contingents to occupy the fords of the Jordan and cut off their retreat.
In a sharp battle, he then defeated the Ephraimites and when the
beaten army fled, they found their way across the Jordan barred:
Judges 12:5. . . . when those Ephraimites which were escaped said,
Let me go over; . . . the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou
an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
Judges 12:6. Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and
he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then
they took him, and slew him . . .
248
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The word shibboleth meant "stream" but it had no significance in
itself; it merely supplied the "sh" sound that was missing in the
Ephraimite dialect. As a result of this passage, the word "shibboleth"
is used in English to represent any catchword that serves to distinguish
one group of men from another.
Forty-two thousand Ephraimites are recorded as having died in this
civil war. That figure is undoubtedly exaggerated but the defeat was
serious enough to end the Ephraimite hegemony over Israel. When
the day came that a king finally arose over Israel, it was not from the
tribe of Ephraim that he was taken.
Nazarite
Jephthah may be counted as the eighth judge and, after the conclu-
sion of his story, three more are briefly mentioned in a verse or two
apiece. These are Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, the ninth, tenth, and elev-
enth judges respectively.
And now again there is a shift in scene; this time westward, to the
southern coast, where the great enemy was the Philistines. The tribe
that suffered most seriously from them was Dan, whose territory lay in
the northern section of Philistia, which was dominated by the Philis-
tines throughout the period of the judges.
Around the struggles between Danites and their Philistine overlords
there arose tales of a folk hero, Samson. Samson is not a leader of an
army, like Barak, Gideon, or Jephthah. He is, instead, a kind of Robin
Hood or Superman, conducting a one-man campaign against the enemy
and winning his way by brute strength, rather than by skill or intelli-
gence.
It is uncertain how much of a nubbin of historical truth lies behind
the undoubtedly exaggerated stories concerning him, for much of the
Samson story can be made to fit into the type of solar myths common
in ancient times: in which the life of a hero reflects the course of the
sun through the heavens.
Samson's life is miraculous from the start, for his birth is announced
to his mother beforehand by an angel:
Judges 13:5. For, lo, thou shdt conceive, and bear a son;
and no rasor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a Nazarite
unto God from the womb . . .
JUDGES 249
The word "Nazarite" means "one who is separate"; that is, one who
marks himself off from ordinary human beings and devotes himself to
the spiritual life. The Nazarite in ancient Israel has some of the flavor
of the monk in Christendom.
Nazarites must have been fairly common in the later monarchy and
the rules for becoming one were written into the Book of Numbers and
thus made part of the law of Moses:
Numbers 6:2. . . . When either man or woman shall . . . vow a
vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord:
Numbers 6:3. He shall separate himself from wine and strong
drink . . .
• • • •
Numbers 6:6. . . . he shall come at no dead body.
Samson is the first person in the Bible to be recorded as a Nazarite,
but he certainly was not an edifying one. Nothing about his life indi-
cated any spiritual uplift, or even any moral sense. Nor did he fulfill
the barest minimum of the Nazarite vows since he did come into con-
tact with dead bodies and he participated at feasts where there must
have been much drinking.
Only his unshaven head and long hair remain of the Nazarite way of
life, and this is an essential part of a solar myth since long hair repre-
sents the rays of the sun. It may well be that it is merely to account for
the long hair in a non-idolatrous fashion that the later editors of the
Book of Judges made him a Nazarite and put him in a role he fit so
poorly.
Zorah
Samson was born:
Judges 13:24. And the woman bare a son, and called his name
Samson: and the child grew . . .
Judges 13:25. ... in the camp of Dan between Zorah and Esh-
taol.
Zorah, the home of Manoah, Samson's father, is located in the east-
em section of Danite territory, about fifteen miles west of Jerusalem.
Eshtaol is a couple of miles to its east
25O ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Zorah
The very name Samson ("Shimshon" in Hebrew) bears a striking
resemblance to the word shemesh, meaning "sun." Only two miles
south of Zorah was the town of Beth-shemesh ("house of the sun")
believed to be a center of sun-worship.
Delilah
From the beginning, Samson displayed a penchant for Philistine
girls:
Judges 14:1. And Samson . . . saw a woman in Timnath of the
daughters of the Philistines.
Judges 14:2. And he . . . told his father and his mother, and
said ... get her for me to wife.
(Timnath was a town about six miles west of Zorah.)
Samson did not marry her in the end but in the course of the
courtship and engagement, Samson performed typical feats. He killed
a lion with his bare hands; he killed thirty Philistines in anger over
having lost a wager; he tied torches to the tails of foxes and turned
them loose in Philistine grainfields.
Later, he breaks loose from binding ropes and singlehandedly slaugh-
ters large numbers of Philistines; he escapes from a city which has
JUDCES 251
locked its gates on him, by lifting the gates bodily and carrying them
away, and so on. None of these feats do Israel any good or the Philis-
tines any serious harm, and many of them can be shown to fit solar
myths commonly told in ancient times.
But then Samson meets his match in the form of another Philistine
girl:
Judges 16:4. And it came to pass afterward, that he loved a
woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah.
The Sorek River flows westward from the neighborhood of Jerusa-
lem to the sea. It forms the southern boundary of Danite territory
and cuts through Philistia south of EkTon and north of Ashdod. It is
a natural route for eastward invasion of Philistine armies into central
Israel.
Delilah is bribed by her Philistine compatriots to find out from
Samson the secret of his strength. After several evasions, he tells her:
Judges 16:17. . . . There hath not come a rasor upon mine head
. . , if 1 be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall
become weak, and be like any other man.
Judges 16:19. And she [Delilah] made him [Samson] sleep upon
her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off
the seven locks of his head; . . . and his strength went from him.
There is nothing in the Nazarite ritual that implies that it is the
purpose of the long hair to give unusual strength to a man. This is
clearly mythological and fits in with the sun motif.
Delilah's name is closely akin to the Hebrew lilah ("night") so
apparently the tale tells of night overcoming the sun and depriving it
of its rays as it sets toward the horizon and becomes ruddy and dim.
Dagon
Now at last the Philistines could take Samson. They blinded him
(the sun, which may be viewed as the eye of the heavens, is removed
and vanishes from the sky with the coming of night) and put him to
hard labor in prison. Then, in celebration
Judges 16:23. ... the lords of the Philistines gathered them to-
gether for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god . . .
252
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Very little is known about the nature of Dagon for the rites to this
god of the Philistines of Gaza and Ashdod died out after Old Testa-
ment times. Because the word "Dagon" resembles dag, the Hebrew
word for "fish," the idol has often been supposed to represent a fish-
god and even to be in the form of a merman, man above the waist
and fish below. This is the form in which Milton describes Dagon in
Paradise Lost when he calls the roll of the fallen angels.
Since the Philistines were a coastal people, to whom fish and fishing
could have been important, this seemed reasonable. However, the name
of the god is even closer to dagan, the Hebrew word for "grain,"
and it is therefore even more reasonable to suppose that Dagon was an
agricultural god, a very common type of deity.
The one other important mention of Dagon in the Bible gives
some hint of the appearance of the idol. In later years, the Philistines
capture the ark of the covenant and take it into the temple of Dagon
with drastic results for their idol:
1 Samuel 5:4. And when they arose early on the morrow, behold,
Dagon was fallen upon his face . . . and the head of Dagon and
both . . . hands were cut off ... ; only the stump of Dagon was
left to him.
In the Revised Standard Version, the final phrase is given as "only
the trunk of Dagon was left to him."
If the bottom half of the idol had been that of a fish, it seems very
difficult to believe that the Biblical writers would not have said "only
the tail of Dagon was left to him." The weight of the evidence would
seem to lie, then, despite Milton, in favor of Dagon as a grain-god.
In any case, the name Dagon is clearly Semitic and is a good example
of how Philistine culture was Semitized after their arrival in Canaan
(if not before).
The feast to celebrate the capture of Samson did not end well for
the Philistines. They brought out the blinded Samson in order to make
their enjoyment of the occasion the keener.
Judges 16:22. Howbeit the hair of his head began to grow again
after he was shaven.
Again the sun myth can be seen here, for although the eye of the
day is blinded and the sun disappears, it invariably appears again. It
JUDCES 253
rises once more in the east, with its rays weak and dim, yes, but growing
brighter and stronger as it climbs in the sky.
In a last display of strength, Samson pushes apart the pillars sup-
porting the roof of the large house in which they feasted. He himself,
and many Philistines, died in the collapse that followed. In this way, a
story which had many of the aspects of farce ended with a touch of
tragic dignity. Samson is the twelfth judge, the last in the Book of
Judges.
Dan
Dan and the Danite Migration
The Book of Judges does not end with the twelfth judge. The last
five chapters add two supplementary narratives which are placed in
this book because they belong in its particular historical period. The
writer specifies this:
Judges 18:1. In those days there was no king in Israel . . .
Unlike the earlier accounts in this book, however, these final incidents
are not associated with the feats of any specific judge.
The first account deals with the tribe of Dan, which found itself un-
2 54
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
bearably oppressed by the overpowering might of the Philistines, who
occupied most of the region theoretically assigned to Dan at the con-
quest and dominated the rest.
Judges 18:2. . . . in those days the tribe of the Danites sought
them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day all their inher-
itance had not fallen unto them . . .
"In those days" merely specifies the period of the judges; it does not
tell us certainly whether it comes before or after the feats of Samson. If
it is assumed that because the incident follows the tales of Samson, it
therefore occurs later in time and is good evidence that Samson's activi-
ties did not seriously weaken the Philistines or help the Danites.
The Danites decided, therefore, to seek for an area far away from
the powerful Philistines, and sent a group of five men to reconnoiter
the far north. Eventually
Judges 18:7. . . . the five men . . . came to Laish, and saw the
people that were therein, how they dwelt careless, after the manner
of the Zidonians . . . and they were far from the Zidonians and had
no business with any man.
In other words, they found a Phoenician (Canaanite) city, thirty
miles inland, which could not easily be rescued by the main Phoenician
power centers on the coast. Furthermore, it had lived in peaceful
isolation, without having formed military alliances that might serve to
make an assault against the city expensive and subject to retaliation.
The scouts reported this on returning home, whereupon a body of six
hundred men were sent northward to secure the place. In passing
through the territory of the bordering tribe of Ephraim, they calmly
appropriated an idol built by Micah, an unoffending Ephraimite who
had been hospitable to the spies on their earlier trip. They also took
with them the Levite who had served as private chaplain to the Ephraim-
ite. When Micah objected, the Danites threatened to kill him into
the bargain.
Judges 18:26. And the children of Dan went their way: and when
Micah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went
back unto his house.
This is an example of the anarchy of the times and the disunity of
the tribes. Danites felt no compunction, presumably, in stealing from
JUDGES 255
Ephraimites. (From the fact that no Ephraimite force advanced to
oppose the marauding Danites, it might be supposed that this happened
after Ephraim's catastrophic defeat at the hands of Jephthah.)
Nor were the Danites the only offenders in this respect. They were
offended against as well. When Samson, a Danite, was conducting his
harassment of the Philistines, a band of men of Judah (neighboring
Danite territory to the south and southeast), fearing general Philis-
tine reprisals, acted to remove the troublemaking Samson:
Judges 15:12. . . . they said unto him, We are come down to
bind thee, that we may deliver thee into the hand of the Philis-
tines . . .
They fulfilled their threat, too (though Samson later escaped the
Philistines by means of his superstrength ) . Apparently, the men of
Judah did not hesitate to sacrifice a Danite to what we would consider
the common enemy.
As it is put in the final verse of the Book of Judges:
Judges 21:25. In those days there was no king in Israel; every man
did that which was right in his own eyes.
This lack of law and order, this feeling that might was the only right,
goes far to explain the eventual Israelite clamor for a king and is some-
thing even the general anti-monarchic attitude of the final editors of
the Book of Judges cannot hide.
But to return to the migrating Danite band—
They reached Laish and attacked it as consciencelessly as they had
robbed the Ephraimite and with as great a success. They destroyed
Laish and built a new city in its place.
Judges 18:29. And they called the name of the city Dan . . .
The site of Dan is usually identified with the Arab town Tell el
Kady, located on the upper Jordan, nearly thirty miles north of the
Sea of Galilee. ("Dan" and "Kady" both mean "judge.")
Dan represented the farthest northern reach of any purely Israelite
territory (although Israelite dominion in the greatest days of the mon-
archy extended much farther north over areas occupied by non-Isra-
elites). The phrase "from Dan to Beersheba" can therefore be taken
to mean "all Israel" since Beersheba was the southernmost Israelite
town of any consequence. The distance from Dan to Beersheba is about
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
x 50 miles, which is equal to the distance from Albany to New York, a
respectable distance in Old Testament times.
The site of Dan still stands at the northernmost edge of modem Israel,
though Beersheba is far from the southern edge. Modern Israel controls
a 120-mile stretch of desert (the Negev) south of Beersheba. Israel
now extends over an extreme length of 270 miles.
Dan's position made it as isolated and exposed in its new role as an
Israelite city as it had been in its earlier role as a Phoenician city.
Not long after the death of Solomon, it was taken by a Syrian army
from the north and that was the end of it. Its span of existence was
two centuries.
Gibeah
The next account, the one with which the Book of Judges ends, is
an even more distressing story, one which even more clearly indicates
the state of anarchy and lawlessness that prevailed in Israel before the
kingship was established.
It concerns a man of Ephraim who was traveling northward from
Judah with his concubine, intending to cross the intervening territory
,s*kk
■rSr., ■ ■
E P H nf^)
Mills-
J. >*ta. lit*."
BENJAMIN
(D£ADS£AJ
Gibeah
of Benjamin. The day was drawing to a close when he and his party
reached Jerusalem, which lies on the boundary dividing the territory of
JUDGES 257
Judah from Benjamin. He might have stayed there for the night, but
Jerusalem was then under the control of the non-Israelite Jebusites and
the man of Ephraim preferred to find a nearby Israelite city in which
to stay.
Judges 19:12. . . . We will not turn aside hither into the city of a
stranger . . . ; we will pass over to Gibeah.
(Gibeah lay five miles north of Jerusalem and was an important Ben-
jamite center.) There he managed to find a night's lodging with an
old man, who happened to be a fellow Ephraimite. That night, how-
ever, a gang of Benjamite toughs besieged the old man's house, and
seizing the concubine, abused and eventually killed her.
Again, it would seem, tribal disunity exacerbated the situation.
One cannot help thinking that the Benjamites would not have acted
with such disregard of humanity if they had not been dealing with
Ephraimites, members of another tribe, and therefore strangers.
The irony of it is that if the Ephraimite and his concubine had
slept over in Jerusalem, the "city of a stranger" which he would not
enter, he would probably have been safe.
The "outrage at Gibeah" is the city's only claim to a very dubious
fame, and it was held up in later centuries as the very epitome of
sinfulness, a standard against which to measure disgrace. Thus, the
prophet Hosea, writing some four centuries later of his own generation,
said:
Hosea 9:9. They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days
of Gibeah . . .
Mizpeh [Benjamin]
The account of the events following the outrage of Gibeah is a
puzzling one, for in several ways it seems inconsistent with other
parts of Biblical history. When news of the outrage was spread among
the tribes:
Judges 20:1. . . . all the children of Israel went out, and the
congregation was gathered together as one man, from Dan even
to Beersheba, with the land of Gilead, unto the Lord in Mizpeh.
2 5 8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Mizpeh here is not the one in Gadite territory where
Jephthah's troops gathered before the battle with the Ammonites.
Rather it was a town in Benjamin, near its border with Ephraim. In
the period of the judges, this was used as a tribal meeting place on
several occasions.
We need not literally suppose, of course, that "all the children of
Israel" assembled there; but rather that representatives of all the
tribes were there, including even those from beyond the Jordan.
The gathering is pictured as being horrified at the event and
unanimously deciding on united action against Cibeah.
Judges 20:11. So all the men of Israel were gathered against the
city, knit together as one man.
And yet this seems so unlikely. Throughout the period of the
judges, the tribes of Israel did not unite even under the most pressing
of dangers. They did not all unite against Sisera or against the
Midianites or against the Ammonites. Indeed, Manasseh's fight against
the Midianites nearly provoked civil war with Ephraim, and Gad's
fight against the Ammonites did provoke such a civil war. Therefore
it seems quite unbelievable that a united front could be set up on this
occasion.
Perhaps the later editors idealized the situation. Could it be that
what actually happened was that all Ephraim, rather than all Israel,
united against Benjamin in defense of the manhandled Ephraimites?
If one were to search for historic justification, however, one might
suppose that the Book of Joshua was accurate and that at the time of
the conquest and perhaps immediately afterward the Israelite tribes
were taking common action. Might then the outrage at Gibcah have
happened right at the start of the period of the judges, despite its
position at the end of the book?
After all, when in the war that followed, Israel suffered initial de-
feats, they turned to the ark of the covenant for advice and the
Bible pauses in its account to say:
Judges 20:28. And Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of
Aaron, stood before it in those days . . .
But Eleazar was contemporary with Joshua, so that events occur-
ring in the lifetime of Eleazar's son must be taking place immediately
JUDGES 259
after the conquest, and while united action was still, presumably,
part of the Israelite tradition.
The war finally turned against Benjamin. The Israelites were vic-
torious, Cibeah was sacked, and the entire Benjamite territory dev-
astated. Indeed, the Benjamite population was almost wiped out.
Judges 20:47. But six hundred men turned and fled . . . unto
the rock Rimmon.
The "rock Rimmon" is sometimes identified with a wild, hilly region
five miles north of Cibeah.
Only these six hundred men, the Biblical story indicates, remained
of the Benjamites. Even if we assume an exaggeration, the story, if it
has a foundation of historical truth at all, must indicate a serious and
even devastating defeat of Benjamin. If so, it could not have hap-
pened toward the end of the period of the judges, for Benjamin was
prosperous then. It was from Benjamin, in fact, that a king of Israel
was soon to be drawn. On the other hand, the picture of a greatly
weakened Benjamin early in the period of the judges might be con-
sidered consistent with the Moabite invasion that put Benjamin under
enemy occupation and provoked the counteraction of Ehud (see
page 234).
Jabesh-gSead
The story goes on to say that Israel repented the destruction of
Benjamin and was unwilling to see a tribe disappear. The six
hundred survivors might serve as a nucleus for repopulation but the
Israelites had sworn to give them no wives. They looked therefore
for some city or group that had not been represented in the war
against Benjamin and that had therefore not participated in the oath.
Judges 21:8. . . . And behold, there came none to the camp
from Jabesh-gilead . . .
Jabesh-gilead was a Gadite city, located east of the Jordan River
about fifteen miles north of Succoth.
The Israelites proceeded to sack Jabesh-gilead and obtain a supply
of wives for the Benjamites. In this way, Benjamin survived. Again,
if this happened at all it could not have happened late in the period
26b
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jabesh-gilead
of judges for in the time of King Saul, which followed hard after,
Jabesh-gilead was a flourishing town.
(I can't resist the personal speculation that some Israelite writer in
the early period of the monarchy decided to write what we would today
call a historical romance centering about the affair at Gibeah. He
filled it with violence and action and did not hesitate to adjust history
to the dramatic needs of the story. And then, somehow, the tale was
taken seriously by the priestly editors who later drew together the
various tribal traditions into the Book of Judges. It was therefore in-
cluded, but was placed at the end because it seemed to fit nowhere.
Now, there it is, a puzzle for Biblical scholars to try to decipher.)
8. RUTH
THE BOOK OF RUTH • BETHLEHEM- JUDAH • MAHLON AND CHUJOK • RUTH •
DAVID
The Book of Ruth
Following the Book of Judges, in the various versions of the Bible
used by Christians, is a short book of four chapters, titled Ruth after
its heroine. It is set in the time of the judges:
Ruth 1:1. Now it came to pass in the days when the judges
ruled . . .
262
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
One might almost think it was another of the tales of the time.
Something to add to the accounts of the wars of Gideon and Jephthah,
the exploits of Samson, the migration of the Danites, the outrage at
Gibeah. Why then is it not made a part of the Book of Judges?
The answer is that it is not just another of the tales of the time.
The material in the Book of Judges is uniformly bloody, primitive,
and at times even repulsive, as is to be expected of stories based on
the contemporary chronicles of a crude, barbaric era. The story of
Ruth, on the other hand, is a charming pastoral idyl, written as
though by someone looking back at a period from a long distance,
and seeing it in the light of the "good old days," a time of simplicity
and peace and good will— which the rime certainly was not.
In short, the Book of Ruth was composed in the fifth century b.c.
in all likelihood, after the return of the Jews from exile and some
seven centuries after the time it purports to describe. And even
though its central thesis is based on historic tradition, perhaps the
details surrounding it are fictional.
The Jews recognized this by including the book only in the third
division of the Bible— "The Writings." The books in this section were
considered by them to be literature, rather than history.
Nevertheless, the historic point it makes is so important to the
Christian scheme of things, that it has been drawn forward into the
historic section of the Bible and placed in its appropriate position
in the story— immediately after the Book of Judges.
Bethlehem-judah
The tale begins with a famine that drives a family of Israelites out
of their home in Judah:
Ruth 1:1. . . . And a certain man of Bethlehem-judah went
to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two
sons.
Bethlehem-judah is so called to distinguish it from Bethlehem-
zebulun, about seventy-five miles northward. Bethlehem-judah is so
much the more famous for reasons that will soon be made plain that
any reference simply to Bethlehem may be taken to mean Bethlehem-
judah.
RUTH 263
In fact, the only mention of Bethlehem-zebulun in the Bible is
thought to be in connection with Ibzan, one of the minor judges
(the ninth in order) glancingly mentioned in the Book of Judges:
Judges 12:8. And after him [Jephthah] Ibzan of Bethlehem
judged Israel.
Bethlehem-judah, located about six miles south of Jerusalem, ap-
parently bore an earlier name of Ephrath (see page 102). Even in the
time of David, the men of Bethlehem could be called Ephrathites:
1 Samuel 17:12. Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of
Bethlehem-judah, whose name was Jesse . . .
and the writer of Ruth follows that custom in connection with the
family entering Moab:
Ruth 1:2. And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the
name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon
and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah . . .
Bethlehem had until now been mentioned in the Bible only in
unhappy connections. Rachel had died near it, giving birth to Ben-
jamin. The Danites migrating northward to consummate a bloody
aggression took with them a Levite who was from Bethlehem-judah.
The concubine who was brutally outraged and killed in Gibeah was of
Bethlehem-judah.
Now, however, Bethlehem begins to take on a new and unique im-
portance through its association with this family and what is to follow.
Mahlon and Chilion
In Moab, Elimelech dies, but his sons marry Moabite girls:
Ruth 1:4. And they took them wives of the women of Moab;
the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth:
and they dwelled there about ten years.
Ruth 1:5. And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them . . .
Since "Mahlon" means "sickness" and "Chilion" means "wasting,"
they don't seem to be the type of names anyone would give children.
Further, from the early death of the two sons, the names appear
264 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
entirely too appropriate. The use of such appropriate names is, how-
ever, often characteristic of fiction.
Ruth
Naomi, bereft of her husband and sons, decides to return to
Bethlehem and assumes that her daughters-in-law will not wish to go
with her into a strange land. Orpah does indeed part from her, but
the other daughter-in-law, Ruth, refuses flatly:
Ruth 1:16. And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee . . .
for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will
lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God;
and the two go to Bethlehem.
In Bethlehem, Ruth meets Boaz, a rich relative of Naomi's, who is
attracted to the girl despite the fact that she is a foreigner, and is
grateful to her for the love and care she is showing Naomi. Naomi
shrewdly arranges matters so that Boaz ends by offering to marry
Ruth in full, traditional style.
The marriage is made and eventually a son is born, which comforts
Naomi and consoles her for her own losses. Ruth, her loyal daughter-
in-law, although a Moabitess, is now considered a fully assimilated
member of the community and the Israelite women praise her:
Ruth 4:14. And the women said unto Naomi . . .
Ruth 4:15. . . . thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, . . .
is better to thee than seven sons . . .
She has remained ever since, to all men, one of the most attractive
women in the Bible.
David
But now comes the real point of the story:
Ruth 4:17. And the women . . . gave it [Ruth's son] a name
Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
RUTH 265
Ruth, in other words, was the great-grandmother of Israel's hero-
king David.
The purpose of the book seems clear. It was written at the time
when the Jews, like Naomi, were returning from exile. The exiles
were bitterly anxious to purify the land from the strangers who had
been settled on it during the Exile. Their leaders established a rigid
and narrow racial policy by which all intermarriage with foreigners was
forbidden and all who had already married foreign wives must put
them away.
But there must have been many among the Jews who were appalled
at the pettiness of such a policy and at the heartlessness with
which it would have to be enforced. One of them wrote the Book
of Ruth as a clarion call for universality and for the recognition of
the essential brotherhood of man.
In writing the tale, the author might have been inspired by the
existence of an actual tradition to the effect that David was part
Moabite in ancestry. Certainly, at one period in his life when he
was in peril and it seemed to him that not only he but his entire
family was in danger of slaughter, David brought his parents to Moab
for safety:
1 Samuel 22:3. And David . . . said unto the king of Moab,
Let my father and my mother ... be with you, till I know what
God will do for me.
At the time, it may have been good policy for Moab's king to
support David, who was then rebelling against Saul, since in that
way Israel could be weakened. Nevertheless, David's confidence in
Moab at this juncture may also have arisen from a realization of kin-
ship.
If there was such a tradition, the writer of the Book of Ruth made
superb use of it, and whether the details he added are fictional or not
is of little moment as far as the book's deeper meaning is concerned.
By making the heroine a Moabitess, the writer sharpened the
point of the story, for Moabite women were the traditional corrupters
of Israelite men, thanks to the well-known story told in the Book of
Numbers (see page 189). And yet this foreign woman was the
ancestress of David.
The point could not have been made stronger. Not only could a
foreigner be assimilated into Judaism and prove a worthy addition to
266
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
it, but the foreigner might be the source of the highest good. Ought
one to forbid foreign marriages as was done after the return from
exile? Why, if Boaz's foreign marriage had been forbidden, there would
have been no David.
To Christians, the importance went even further. Through David,
Ruth was an ancestress of Jesus, and therefore the tale tends to
reinforce the Christian view of the Messiah; that he is for all mankind
and not for the Jews alone.
9. 1 SAMUEL
SHILOH • APHEK • KIRJATH-JEAKIM • MIZPEH • SAUL • JABESH-CILEAD •
JONATHAN " MICHMASH * ACAC * THE PROPHETS • BETHLEHEM • DAVID •
GOLIATH ' DAVID AND JONATHAN • NOB • ADULLAM ' ZKLAC * GO-BOA •
BETH-SHAN
Shiloh
We now move into a period of increasingly reliable history. The
next group of books tells of the establishment of the monarchy, and
of its progress, first as a single kingdom of Israel, then as two smaller
kingdoms, until the final destruction of one arid the temporary destruc-
tion of the other.
Originally this history was detailed in two books. The former was
called "Samuel" because it dealt with the prophet and judge of that
name, and with the first two kings of Israel, both of whom were
anointed by that prophet. The second was called "Kings" for obvious
reasons.
Since both books were rather long, and therefore inconvenient to
handle in the days when books were printed on long rolls, the Jewish
scholars in Egypt, who prepared the first Greek translation of the
Bible about 250 B.C., divided each book into two parts. Thus, we
now have 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 2 Kings. Since all four
books deal with the monarchy it would also be reasonable to call
them 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 3 Kings, and 4 Kings. This, in fact, is what
is done in the Catholic versions of the Bible. Nevertheless, I will
follow the convention of the King James Version.
The book of 1 Samuel begins with Samuel's parents:
1 Samuel 1:1. Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-
zophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah . . .
The Kingdom of Saul
1 SAMUEL 269
Ramathaim-zophim is also referred to as Ramathaim, or even as
Ramah (but is then to be distinguished from the better-known
Ramah in Benjamin). The site is not certain but the consensus seems
to place it in western Ephraim about ten miles east of the modem
Shiloh
city of Tel Aviv. In New Testament times, it is to appear once again,
but under the Greek version of the name— Arimathea.
Elkanah was an Ephraimite. His genealogy is traced back to his
great-great-grandfather, who is identified as
1 Samuel 1:1. . . . Zufih, an Ephrathite.
This, however, is an error. The Revised Standard Version, as well as
the New Catholic Edition and the Masoretic Edition all identify Zuph
as "an Ephraimite." It is a small point, but if Samuel is viewed as
having been descended from an Ephrathite, that is, from a man of
Bethlehem-judah, his later relationship to David of Bethlehem may
be misconstrued.
2yO ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
On the other hand, although Elkanah and his son Samuel are
Ephraimites in the sense that they live in Ephraim, they are described
in later records as being Levites by descent
1 Chronicles 6:33. ... 0/ the sons of the Kohathites: . . .
Shemuel,
1 Chronicles 6:34. The son of Elkanah . . .
The Kohathites are the descendants of Kohath, second son of Levi.
(Shemuel is but the Hebrew form of the name we call Samuel, and
it is given as Samuel in this verse in the Revised Standard Version.)
The tale continues, with reference to Elkanah:
1 Samuel 1:3. And this man went . . . yearly to worship . . .
in ShUoh . . .
Shiloh, located in the hill country in the center of Ephraim,
was the spiritual nucleus of the region. To it, Israelites traveled to
sacrifice at appropriate times of the year, as, over a century later, they
were to travel to the Temple at Jerusalem.
The history of Shiloh as the site of a religious shrine sacred to
Israel dates back, according to tradition, to the time of Joshua:
Joshua 18:1. And . . . Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and
set up the tabernacle of the c»ngregation there.
This tabernacle had been constructed at Mount Sinai, as described
in the final third of the Book of Exodus, and it included the ark of
the covenant, which was considered the resting place of God Himself.
Eli, serving as High Priest at Shiloh at this time, was also an Ephra-
imite, who according to later tradition was a Levite, and a descendant
of Ithamar, fourth and youngest son of Aaron.
Elkanah's wife, Hannah, had no children, and at Shiloh, she vowed
that if she were granted a child, he would be raised as a Nazarite and
devoted to the Lord. She later had a child, named him Samuel, and
eventually sent him to Eli to serve at the temple.
The story is rather similar to that told of Samson and it may
be that the story here has been, rather unaptly, cast back into the
Book of Judges in order to explain Samson's long hair in ■ a non-
mythological fashion.
1 SAMUEL
2 7 1
Aphek
In the interval since the Israelites had entered Canaan, matters had
settled down in some ways. The Canaanites in the north had been
crushed in the battle against Sisera. The various competing peoples
across the Jordan— the Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, and Amale-
kites— had been held off and beaten back through the activity of
men such as Ehud, Gideon, and Jephthah.
But that left the Philistines, the most technologically advanced,
best organized, and hence most dangerous of the early enemies of
Israel. They were strong in the north, controlled the coastal area
completely, and were dominant over the territory of Judah in the
southern portion of Israel. This is indicated by the statement of the
men of Judah who came to bind Samson and deliver him to the
Philistines :
Judges 15:11. . . . [The] men of judah . . . said to Samson,
Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us?
The core of Israelite resistance to the Philistines was the centrally
located Rachel tribes, headed by Ephraim. These had been weakened
in the war against the Trans-Jordanian tribes under Jephthah, so it
was a good time for the Philistines to make their advance, and the
scene was set for a great, perhaps a climactic battle:
1 Samuel 4:1. . . . Now Israel went out against the Philistines
to battle, . . . and the Philistines pitched in Aphek.
The site of Aphek is not certain, but there seems reason to think
that the later town of Antipatris (mentioned in the New Testament)
was built on its site. Aphek was, in that case, at the western edge
of Ephraimite territory (perhaps five miles north of Samuel's home
town of Ramathaim) and at the northern edge of Philistine territory
(about twenty miles north of Ekron, the most northerly member of
the Philistine federation).
After a preliminary defeat, the Israelites thought to alter matters
by bringing the ark of the covenant into the camp, in the belief that
the physical presence of God would ensure victory. The Philistines
2 7 2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
themselves accepted the validity of this view and are pictured as in
deep consternation over the effect of the presence of the God of the
Israelites. They nerved themselves to a desperate fight.
In a great battle, the Israelites were totally defeated; the two sons
of Eli, who were with the army, were slain, and the ark of the
covenant was taken. At hearing the news, the old High Priest, Eli,
died of shock.
This battle, which may have taken place about 1080 B.C., marks
the end of Shiloh as a religious center, less than a century after
Joshua had established it as such by moving his headquarters there.
Its actual fate is not described in the Bible because of the eventual
overriding concern with Jerusalem as the religious center of the nation,
references to earlier shrines are reduced to a minimum.
Still there are hints, as when the prophet Jeremiah threatens the
king of Judah with destruction, quoting God's words as:
Jeremiah 26:6. Then wUl I make this house like Shiloh . . .
It seems very likely that in the aftermath of the battle, the Philis-
tines plundered deep into Israelite territory, destroying Shiloh. For
a period of about half a century thereafter, Philistine domination
extended, more or less loosely, over all of Canaan. The period from
1080 to 1030 b.c. may be taken as the peak of Philistine power.
Kirjath-jearim
Although Shiloh was gone, the ark of the covenant remained,
albeit in enemy hands. The Biblical writers could not allow themselves
to lose sight of the ark (which was eventually to grace the Temple
at Jerusalem) and they devote two chapters to tracing its progress
through Philistine territory.
The Philistines, who thoroughly accepted the ark as representing
the physical presence of an enemy God, were in awe of it, and quite
ready to see in any misfortune that befell themselves the angry work
of that God. Ashdod, where the ark was first placed, experienced
misfortunes, passed it on to Gath, which suffered equally, and passed
it on to Ekron. The Ekronites indignantly refused it.
It was decided, therefore, after the ark had remained among the
1 SAMUEL 273
Kirjath-jearim
Philistine cities for some seven months, to send the dangerous object
into the interior so that distance might lend security. The ark left
Philisria proper and passed into the land of Judah, which was then
under tight Philistine control.
The first stopping place was Beth-shemesh (see page 250), which
also suffered misfortunes, and the ark was sent still further on to a
place where it was to remain for several decades:
1 Samuel 7:1. And the men of Kirjath-jearim came, and fetched
up the ark of the Lord . . .
1 Samuel 7:2. And . . . while the ark abode in Kirjath-jearim
. . . the time was long . . . and . . . Israel lamented after the Lord.
Kirjath-jearim is usually identified with a site about ten miles north-
west of Jerusalem. It was at the extreme edge of the area directly
controlled by the Philistines. In other words, it was as far distant as
they could manage from their own population centers and yet not
so far distant that the Ephraimites could repossess it. In point of fact,
the Ephraimites never did. When the ark once more became the
object of a centralized worship, it was the men of Judah who obtained
it.
2 74
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Mizpeh
What resistance the Rachel tribes could offer after the disaster at
Aphek centered about the person of Samuel. His association, as a child,
with the destroyed shrine at Shiloh gave him standing in later years
as a priest, and he did not flinch in the emergency:
1 Samuel 7:5. And Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpeh.
This is the Mizpeh referred to in connection with the aftermath of
the outrage of Gibeah (see page 257). Its use in the Book of
Judges, in what may have been a fictional account, was probably
drawn from the more historic association with Samuel and its use as a
rallying point for what forces could be gathered from among the
shattered Israelites. The modern site of Mizpeh is occupied by a
village known to the Arabs as Nebi Samwel ("the prophet Samuel"),
and it is there that the traditional site of his grave is located.
The Bible goes on to make it appear that the Philistines were
massively defeated under Samuel, but this is doubtful. If it were so,
the desperate battle of Saul against the Philistines in succeeding years
would be difficult to explain. More likely, the anti-monarchic bias of
some of the priestly records incorporated into 1 Samuel (as in Judges)
is evident here and the feats of Saul and David are pushed backward
in time and given to Samuel the priest. Samuel's position is perhaps
more accurately presented in the picture of the geographical extent
of Samuel's power:
1 Samuel 7:16. And he [Samuel] went from year to year in
circuit to Bethel, and GUgal, and Mizpeh, and judged Israel in all
those places.
Gilgal is not the town mentioned earlier in connection with the
advance of Joshua across the Jordan (see page 211) but is thought
to be another of the same name located about midway between
Samuel's home town Ramah (Ramathaim-zophim) and the destroyed
Shiloh. Bethel is ten miles south of Gilgal and Mizpeh is about eight
miles southwest of Bethel.
The picture one gets, then, is that of a twenty-mile strip of hill
1 SAMUEL 275
country in Ephraim and Benjamin, resolutely maintaining the ap-
parently lost cause of Israel, and engaged in a more or less successful
guerrilla war against the Philistines.
Saul
Whatever successes Samuel was able to achieve served only to keep
in being a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs. Samuel kept matters
from growing worse, but there seemed to be no signs that they would
grow better. The Philistines had to be beaten and not merely held
off. For this reason, particularly after Samuel had grown old, the
clamor grew among the Israelites for a king. A half century had
passed since the disaster at Aphek and it was time.
Samuel is pictured as warning the people against a monarchy, de-
scribing the burdens that would be placed upon them by a king. Here,
once again, the anti-monarchism of the priestly historian shows it-
self. But whether Samuel objected or not, he set about searching for a
suitable candidate for the kingship. This he found in the form of a
young Benjamite:
1 Samuel 9:1. Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name
was Kish . . .
1 Samuel 9:2. And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice
young man, and a goodly . . .
Saul, apparently, had been kept aloof from the problems of the
day, and was not involved in the guerrilla fighting against the Philis-
tines for, as it turned out, he did not even know of Samuel. (This
seems puzzling, but perhaps the matter is not as strange as it appears.
A guerrilla leader can scarcely find it safe to publicize himself too
much. He is most secure and his operations most successful if he re-
mains out of the limelight.)
Saul's encounter with Samuel came when he was trekking through
the hills in search of three asses his father had lost. They passed
near Samuel's station of the moment and Saul's servant, who had heard
of Samuel, but only as a kind of magician, urged that they avail
themselves of his services. For a piece of silver, Samuel might consent
to do the equivalent of looking into a crystal ball and locating the
asses.
276
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Samuel, however, had his mind on something far more important.
On seeing Saul he had the inspiration of making him king. Saul is
described as extremely tall and good-looking and it might have oc-
curred to Samuel that such a man would look every inch the king and
by his appearance alone rally the people about him. Samuel may
have thought further that it would not be difficult to dominate the
young man and remain at his side as the all-powerful prime minister.
He therefore anointed Saul as king:
1 Samuel 10:1. Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it
upon his [Saul's] head, and kissed him, and said . . . the Lord
hath anointed thee . . .
The act of anointing probably originated as an act of cleansing.
In the days before soap, scented oils would serve to remove grime
and leave a pleasant fragrance behind. One would naturally anoint
one's self when about to go before a superior; how much more so
when about to go before God.
Therefore, when something was to be dedicated to God or pre-
sented before Him, the act of anointing was usually involved and
it became symbolic of a divine grace being conferred upon the object
or person anointed.
Thus, when Jacob dreamed of the ladder in Bethel, he took the
stone he had rested his head upon, set it up as a pillar:
Genesis 28:18. . . . and poured oil upon the top of it.
Again, when Aaron was formally made High Priest by Moses:
Leviticus 8:12. And he [Moses] poured of the anointing oU
upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.
Now the device was used by Samuel to imply the special spiritual
character of the kingship. Indeed, it came to be accepted that no one
was really a king until he had gone through the careful ritual of
anointing, so that the phrase "the anointed one" came to be synon-
ymous with "the king."
Samuel next called a council at Mizpeh and carefully arranged
matters so that Saul was chosen by lot, making use, presumably, of
the Urim and Thummim (see page 150). Saul, who had already
been secretly anointed, was now proclaimed king openly by the shouts
of the representatives gathered at the council. This is believed to have
taken place in 1028 B.C.
1 SAMUEL
Jabesh-gilead
It was one thing to demand a king and quite another to rally
round a particular individual chosen as king. To take up arms against
Jabesh-gilead
the Philistines was a serious thing and it required an experienced and
able general. Saul was not yet tested in this respect.
1 Samuel 10:27. But ttie c hHdren of Belid said, How shall this
man save us? And they despised him . . .
The test came soon enough:
1 Samuel 11:1. Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and en-
camped against Jabesh-gilead . . .
Jabesh-gilead, six miles east of the central Jordan, was, like all the
Trans-Jordan, subjected to periodic Ammonite raids from the east.
The greatest crisis had come in the time of Jephthah, but the great
Ammonite defeat then had merely abated the danger. It had not
ended it.
Jabesh-gilead, expecting no help from an Israel which was treading
278
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
softly in the shadow of the Philistine power, made ready to surrender,
but the terms of Nahash were brutal and sadistic— he insisted that
the population of the city submit to having each their right eye put
out. The people of Jabesh-gilead asked for a seven-day period of grace
before submitting even to this and sent, in desperation, for a help they
still dared not expect.
1 Samuel 11:4. Then came the messengers to Gibeah of Saul,
and told the tidings . . .
Saul, however, rose to the occasion, sounding the call to arms and
rallying an army behind him.
1 Samuel 11:7. . . . And . . . the people . . . came out with one
consent.
1 Samuel 11:8. And ... he numbered them in Bezek . . .
Bezek is in the hills of Manasseh, five miles north of Thebez,
where Abimelech died (see page 245). It was due west of where
Jabesh-gilead lay on the other side of the Jordan.
The numbers given of the troops that gathered on that occasion
represent a late tradition and are impossibly high (300,000 men of
Israel and 30,000 men of Judah) and anachronistically assume a
divided kingdom, something that lay a century in the future. In
actuality, Saul probably was able to gather merely the men from the
areas of the Rachel tribes, and obtained a much smaller number— but
enough to do the job. He marched across the Jordan and defeated
the Ammonites. Jabesh-gilead was saved.
The enthusiasm of Israel for Saul was now great indeed. A general
to lead Israel against the Philistines had been found. Saul was crowned
king a second time at Gilgal, amid wild celebration.
(Of course, this double crowning of Saul may well represent the
imperfect fusion of two traditions. The first would be a priestly anti-
monarchic tradition in which the great judge of Israel, Samuel, anoints
and crowns an unknown, bashful youth. The second would be a
Benjamite tradition in which a tribal hero, Saul, accomplishes a
great feat of arms and is acclaimed king in a triumph with which
Samuel had nothing to do. The story of Samuel himself may represent
a similar fusion of two traditions; one in which he is the warlike judge
who rules all Israel and one in which he is an obscure seer with no
more than a local reputation.)
1 SAMUEL 279
Notice that Saul established his capital at Cibeah in Benjamin: the
town of the "outrage." The Bible has occasion to tell later of the
gratitude of the people of Jabesh-gilead to Saul. The Jabeshites re-
mained loyal, in fact, when Saul and his house had sunk low in de-
feat
Now the spirit of loyalty between two regions— in disaster as well as
in prosperity— always strikes a romantic note in history if only because
such disinterest on a regional scale is hard to find. In Greek history
there is the friendship of Plataea and Athens, a friendship in which
Plataea persevered to the death, for instance.
It was perhaps this well-known and romantic relationship between
Cibeah of Saul and Jabesh-gilead that was in the mind of the writer
of the possibly fictional tale of the consequences of the outrage at
Cibeah. In that tale, Jabesh-gilead is pictured as the one Israelite
town refusing to fight against Gibeah and as being destroyed in con-
sequence.
Jonathan
With the Rachel tribes under a war hero, intensified conflict with
the Philistines is inevitable; and at this point, Saul's son Jonathan is
suddenly introduced:
1 Samuel 13:1. Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned
two years over Israel,
1 Samuel 13:2. Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel;
whereof two thousand were with Saul . . . and a thousand were
with Jonathan . . .
When Saul was introduced in the tale of his search for his father's
asses, he was described as a young man, and yet he might even so
have been a father of little children. To suppose, however, that two
years after his anointing he is the father of a grown man capable of
conducting men in war is difficult. The problem here rests with 1
Samuel 13:1, which is not actually a translation of the Hebrew but
merely an attempt to make sense out of the original words. Literally
translated, the Hebrew clause that begins the verse reads: "Saul was
one year old when he began to reign."
It seems that something has been lost and the Revised Standard
280
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Version has the verse read "Saul was . . . years old when he began to
reign; and he reigned . . . and two years over Israel." It explains in a
footnote that the gaps represent missing material.
It may well be that 1 Samuel 13:1 is actually a summarizing chrono-
logical verse that might say, for instance, "Saul was twenty-five years
old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-two years over
Israel." Saul himself probably didn't reign that long but the house of
Saul, that is, he himself and one of his sons, reigned together that
long.
In that case, we needn't suppose that the introduction of Jonathan
comes two years after the start of Saul's reign. It might have come at
any time; well toward the end of it, perhaps. Jonathan might there-
fore have been a boy at the time his father became king and a warlike
young man at the time of the events in this chapter and the next.
As to what happened in the interval after the victory at Jabesh-
gilead had settled Saul on the throne, we can easily suppose that the
time was filled with a slow strengthening of Saul's kingdom. Quite
obviously, Saul was starting from scratch:
1 Samuel 13:19. Now there was no smith found throughout all
the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make
them swords or spears:
The ill-armed Israelites might skulk in their fastnesses and emerge
for hit-and-run raids but if Saul was to lead them into pitched battle
they would simply have to be well armed. Undoubtedly, it took time
to get the arms, capture them, buy them, or, perhaps, develop the
skills necessary to make them. This dull interval of slow strengthening
is slurred over in the Bible.
Michmash
Jonathan launched an attack:
1 Samuel 13:3. And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines
that was in Geba . . .
1 Samuel 13:5. And the Philistines gathered themselves together
to fight with Israel . . . and pitched in Michmash . . .
1 SAMUEL
28l
Michmash
The Philistine outpost of Geba may really refer to the much larger
and more important town of Gibeon, five miles west of Saul's capital,
Gibeah. (Gibeon is the town that once deceived Joshua at the time
of the conquest— see page 215.)
The Philistines, reacting to this provocation, advanced on Geba at
once and reached Michmash, two miles northeast of Geba. (The
town still exists and is known to the Arabs as Mukhmas.) The Israelite
population scattered and hid before the advancing Philistines and
Saul held back his small army and refused to give battle. Jonathan,
however, conducted another raiding party against the Philistines, guid-
ing his men over the hills to attack the Philistine camp from un-
expected quarter. The Philistines, keyed up for an Israelite onslaught,
mistook the relatively small attacking party for the main force of the
enemy, and in a moment of panic, fled.
Jonathan had acted without orders and, indeed, probably against
orders. Saul was angered, therefore, and undoubtedly jealous at the
vast acclaim that greeted his son, and ordered Jonathan's execution.
(The Bible advances a ritualistic explanation for the order.) The army
refused to permit the execution, however, and a certain coldness must
have remained thereafter between father and son. (It is not uncommon
in monarchies, down to modem times, for rivalry and even hatred to
exist between the king and the heir apparent.)
The Philistine defeat at Michmash was important. The Philistines
temporarily fell back to their coastal and southern strongholds and
Saul was given greater room for maneuver.
282
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Agag
With the respite from the Philistine menace, Saul was able to turn
southward to secure the desert border and lay the groundwork for a
possible outflanking maneuver against the Philistine coast. The chosen
target was the Amalekites, with whom the Israelites arc described as
having a traditional enmity dating back to the time of Moses.
1 Samuel 15:7. And Saul smote the Amalekites . . .
1 Samuel 15:8. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites
alive . . .
Agag, the ruler of a petty Amalekite tribe, cannot have been
particularly powerful or renowned, and would not be considered so
were it not for a remark in one of Balaam's blessings (see page 186).
Speaking of Israel's future, Balaam says:
Numbers 24:7. . . . his king shall be higher than Agag . . .
as though Agag were a standard symbol of great power.
Most scholars agree that the mention of Agag in this verse is a
copyist's error. The name may originally have been Og. This would
make sense, for the story of Balaam is placed at a time when Og of
Bashan had been the mightiest monarch yet faced by the Israelites
(see page 182). To say that the future king of Israel would be greater
than Og would have been appropriate to the occasion, and the ac-
cidental change of Og to Agag is not a difficult one to imagine.
The Prophets
And yet while Saul was establishing and securing his kingdom, there
were internal frictions. Saul the king and Samuel the kingmaker were
at odds.
From the start, Samuel had kept his hand on the wheel of state
for at the very time of Saul's anointing we hear for the first rime of
bands of prophets. When Saul was returning home from his encounter
with Samuel:
1 Samuel 10:10. . . . behold, a company of prophets met him . . .
1 SAMUEL 283
These prophets were groups of men who devoted themselves to
ecstatic devotions. They would play instruments, sing, dance, put them-
selves into wild trances, and fall down in frenzy. They rather resembled
certain orders of dervishes of later Islamic times, and if the word were
here given as "dervishes" rather than "prophets," the picture would be
clearer.
In their trances and ecstasies, these prophets or dervishes were
believed to be divinely possessed, to have access to more than human
knowledge, to be able to pronounce oracles, and so on. The very
word "prophet" is from Greek words meaning "to speak forth"; that
is, to relate and interpret the will of God as made manifest to the
prophet during his trance or ecstasy.
In the time of Saul, the companies of prophets were by no means
completely edifying. They may, indeed, have been hang-overs of
paganism. Samuel, as the spiritual leader of the time, seems to have
attempted to guide their energies into the path of Yahvism, but it is
difficult to say how much success he might have had.
Yet the prophets were an excellent tool. They had the capacity
to stir and influence the people and they tended to be strongly na-
tionalistic, ready always to serve as the backbone of resistance against
foreign oppression. Samuel, as their head, could direct them to meet
and join Saul. It was the support of the bands of prophets that was
Samuel's practical contribution to the establishment of Saul's king-
ship:
1 Samuel 10:26. And Saul . . . went home to Gibeah; and there
went with him a band of men, whose hearts God had touched . . .
Undoubtedly, Samuel maintained his grip on Saul through the
prophetic bands and yet Saul, after his victory at Jabesh-gilead, must
have been increasingly irked at prophetic interference in his policies
and must have attempted on several occasions to establish his inde-
pendence.
The crisis came over the battle with the Amalekites. In rousing the
people against the tribesmen, Samuel demanded that the Amalekites
be exterminated entirely; a kind of "destroy the infidel" outlook.
Saul, more humane or more practical, took Agag alive and kept the
herds and other spoil from useless destruction. Samuel was enraged
at this, executed Agag with his own hands, and told Saul:
284
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
1 Samuel 15:23. . . . Because thou hast rejected the word of the
Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
Bethlehem
Samuel, having moved into the opposition, needed someone to
put up against Saul, and turned to the tribe of Judah:
1 Samuel 16:4. And Samuel . . . came to Bethlehem . . .
Prior to the time of Saul, the tribe of Judah is almost ignored in
the Bible; so much so that there is strong suspicion that Judah was
not considered part of Israel up to that time.
In the Book of Judges, Caleb and Othniel appear early as con-
querors of southern Canaan, where later the tribe of Judah was to
be. They are not Israelites, however, but members of Edomite clans.
The tribe is not mentioned in the Song of Deborah, or in the course of
the warlike deeds of Gideon or Jephthah.
In connection with the adventures of Samson, Judah's role is a
completely inglorious one. Judah is subject to the Philistines and makes
no move to throw off the yoke. Instead, to avoid trouble, the men
of Judah hand Samson over to the Philistines.
Judah is mentioned in connection with Saul's battle at Jabesh-
gilead, and is said to have supplied 10 per cent of the army. This,
however, may be a later and non-historical addition, intended to show
Judah as being involved in the national revival.
However, Saul in fighting the Amalekites, who inhabited the desert
south of Judah, would have had to pass through Judah. It may be,
then, that one of the consequences of the Philistine defeat at
Michmash was the revolt of parts of Judah against the Philistines and
their formation of an alliance with Saul.
And yet Judah's allegiance to Saul would have to be relatively
weak. To the men of Judah, Saul would be a foreigner, and a Judean
would therefore be more likely to be a suitable instrument for Samuel
than would a member of the northern tribes who were becoming in-
creasingly loyal to their hard-working, if not quite brilliant, king.
Then, too, Judah throughout its history was more strongly Yahvistic
than the remainder of Israel was. The populous cities of the Canaanites
had been in central and northern Canaan and it was there that the
1 SAMUEL 28;
religious influence of the Canaanites had more successfully diluted
the simpler desert rituals of Yahvism. Judah, closer always to the
desert, might be more influenced by Samuel's Yahvistic point of view.
(It is interesting to compare Judah with Macedon. In ancient
Greece, Macedon was a border area, Greek in culture and language
but rather more primitive, and looked upon as semibarbaric by the
Greeks themselves. At the time the Greeks were fighting their national
war against Persia, Macedon remained under Persian domination, but
the time was to come when Macedon defeated Persia more thoroughly
than Greece ever did, and was to rule, briefly, over all of Greece.
In the same way, Judah was a border area of Israel, Israelite in cul-
ture and language but rather more primitive and looked upon, in all
probability, as semi-Canaanite by the Israelites themselves. At the time
the Israelites were fighting their national war against the great Philis-
tine enemy, Judah remained under Philistine domination, but the time
was to come when Judah defeated the Philistines more thoroughly
than Israel ever did, and was to rule, briefly, over all of Israel.)
David
In Bethlehem, Samuel visited Jesse, the grandson of Boaz and
Ruth (see page 264) and a man of wealth and substance. An ap-
propriate member of his family would command widespread support
throughout Judah. Jesse had eight sons and Samuel was most impressed
with the youngest, David:
1 Samuel 16:12. . . . he was ruddy, . . . and goodly to look to
• • •
1 Samuel 16:13: The Samuel took the horn of oU and anointed
him in the midst of his brethren . . .
Once again, Samuel had chosen a handsome young man to make
into a king.
Meanwhile, Saul, knowing that Samuel and the prophets had
turned against him, and suspecting they would rouse rebellion, had
grown, rather understandably, moody and suspicious. The courtiers
suggested music as therapy and one of them (it is very tempting to
suspect he was in Samuel's pay) suggested that a certain David, whom
he praised as a skilled harpist, be brought to court.
286
ASIMOv's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Judah in David's Time
1 Samuel 16:21. And David came to Saul, . . . and he became his
armourbearer.
1 Samuel 16:23. And . . . when the evil spirit . . . was upon
Saul, . . . David took an harp, and played ... so Saul was re-
freshed and was well
With David at court, gaining the confidence of Saul, and serving
his apprenticeship in war under him, Samuel's plan was working well.
Goliath
There follows a second tale describing the introduction of David to
Saul's court, one that is inconsistent with the first. Both are included,
without any attempt to enforce consistency, as though the Biblical
writers were saying, "On the other hand, some say this . . ."
The second tale begins with a confrontation between the Philistines
and the Israelites:
1 Samuel 17:1. Now the Philistines gathered together their armies
to battle ... at Shocoh . . .
1 SAMUEL 287
Shocoh is a town in Judah, about thirteen miles west of Bethlehem.
If it is correct to assume that Saul's battle .against the Amalekites
was made possible by his alliance with a Judah that was rebelling
against the Philistines, then it is reasonable to suppose that the Philis-
tines would strive to restore Judah to the yoke by force, and that
Saul's troops would be sent south to support the new ally.
At Shocoh, the armies faced each other in stalemate, each waiting
for some favorable moment or condition to attack and, during the
wait, a man of Gath challenged any member of the Israelite army to
single combat, suggesting that victory for the entire army rest with the
winner of the duel. He is described as a giant:
1 Samuel 17:4. . . . Goliath of Oath, whose height was six cubits
and a span.
Accepting the cubit as roughly seventeen inches, and the span as
nine inches, that would make his height just over nine feet. (The
dramatic nature of this story, by the way, has so impressed later genera-
tions that "Goliath" has entered the English language as a term used
for anything of monstrous size.)
Jesse's three oldest sons were serving with the army, and Jesse sent
his youngest son, David, with supplies for his soldier brothers. The
youngster heard the challenge and was indignant that it remained un-
accepted. David offered to fight Goliath and faced him, unarmored,
bearing only a sling. With a smooth stone, whirled speedily from the
sling and aimed unerringly, he killed the giant and the Philistines
fled.
This is one of the most famous stories in the Bible, so much so
that any unequally matched contest is considered a "David-and-Goliath
battle."
But the very drama of the story makes it suspect. In any real battle,
would either army risk the outcome on a single combat? The circum-
stances surrounding the fight seem to be the deliberate creation of a
skilled writer, intended to produce a profound emotional effect.
Goliath's height and armor are stressed and exaggerated, as is David's
youth and unarmed courage.
Then, after the battle, it turns out that neither Saul nor his general
know the lad, and that it is only through his great fame as the slayer
of Goliath that David gains entry into the court. This is a direct con-
tradiction to the more believable story in the previous chapter.
288
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Actually, the Bible contains a hint as to how the story of David and
Goliath may have come to be written. Later, when the Bible lists
some of the important warriors fighting in David's armies and tells of
their feats of arms, we find:
2 Samuel 21:19. . . . Elhanan . . . a Bethlehemite, slew the brother
of Goliath the Gittite . . .
Since "Gittite" means "a man of Gath" the verse seems clear. Goliath
had a brother and he, too, was killed by a native of Bethlehem. But
the phrase "the brother of" was added by the translators of the
King James Version, who followed a similar verse in another book of
the Bible.
In the Book of 1 Chronicles, which retells the history given in the
Books of 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, but which was written some cen-
turies later, we have:
1 Chronicles 20:5. . . . and Elhanan . . . slew Lahmi the brother
of Goliath the Gittite . . .
Lahmi is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and it is at least
possible that it is an accidental spelling of "Bethlehemite." The writer
of this verse may have assumed that to leave out the phrase "the
brother of" would make the verse inconsistent with the well-known
story that David killed Goliath, so he put it in. The translators of the
King James Version followed suit in the original verse in 2 Samuel.
Nevertheless, there is no certainty that anything dropped out of the
verse in 2 Samuel, and the Revised Standard Version gives 2 Samuel
21:19 as simply: ". . . Elhanan ... the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath
the Gittite . . ."
It might be, then, that the otherwise unknown Elhanan killed
Goliath in the course of some battle and that a panegyricist in later
years wrote a little historical tale filled with romantic and edifying de-
tail, in which he ascribed the feat to Israel's great hero-king. Like the
story of George Washington and the cherry tree, it caught on and
came to be accepted as history. The telltale verse in 2 Samuel remained,
however, and had to be patched up in 1 Chronicles— and in the King
James translation.
1 SAMUEL 289
David and Jonathan
In whatever fashion David came to court, whether as a harpist or as
a war hero, he met Jonathan the heir apparent there:
1 Samuel 18:1. . . . the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul
of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
The intensity and disinterest of this friendship is such that the
phrase "David and Jonathan" has become a byword for deep friend-
ship, like the equivalent "Damon and Pythias" drawn from Greek
history.
The Bible takes pains to show David innocent of all wrongdoing
with respect to Saul, but even accepting the Biblical account, one
wonders if the innocence was complete. David had been anointed by
Samuel and therefore knew he was king, in the eyes of the priestly
faction at least. How innocent toward Saul could he be?
Saul himself could eye David only with deep suspicion as time went
on and as David's charm and his skill in war gained popularity for
him. Even leaving the anointing episode to one side, we must remem-
ber that a popular general is always dangerous to a king.
Furthermore, Saul was probably suspicious of his own son as an
aftermath of the battle of Michmash. To watch the popular heir ap-
parent join forces with the popular general could lead to only one
thought in the mind of any prudent king— they were plotting a coup.
1 Samuel 18:9. And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.
Nob
David could not remain unaware of the gathering coldness of
the suspicious Saul and when Jonathan warned him of the danger to
his life, David left court and joined those he felt to be sympathetic
toward him:
1 Samuel 19:18. So Ddvfd fled, and escaped and came to Samuel
to Ramah . . .
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
If anything was needed to convict David in Saul's eyes, this was it,
of course. Saul sent an armed contingent to take David, who eventually
eluded them.
1 Samuel 21:1. Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the
priest . . .
The actual location of Nob is uncertain. The best Biblical evidence
for that location comes from the Book of Isaiah. The prophet is
describing the advance of the Assyrian army against Jerusalem and
the climax comes:
Isaiah 10:32. As yet shall he [Assyria] remain at Not that day:
he shall shake his hand against . . . Jerusalem.
Since the Assyrian is advancing from the north that would make
it seem as though Nob were on a height not far from Jerusalem in
that direction, and in fact its site is traditionally identified with a
hill in Benjamite territory two miles north of that city.
The City of Nob: Dashed line indicates David's flight
David must logically have been striving to reach the safety of Judah
where his fellow tribesmen might rally round him. Saul must, equally
logically, have foreseen this and kept men watching the routes toward
Judah. David's doubling back into Benjamite territory and getting help
under the nose of the king succeeded through its unexpectedness.
Nob seems to have represented the remnant of the old Shiloh-
worship. Ahimelech is described as the son of a man who is elsewhere
described as the grandson of Eli, the last High Priest at Shiloh, and it
1 SAMUEL 29I
may have been to Nob that the survivors of the Philistine sack of the
earlier holy city had fled.
Saul, angered at David's having eluded him, breaks out into re-
proaches against his courtiers, accusing all of them of conspiracy
and making it quite clear he considers David merely a tool of Jonathan:
1 Samuel 22:8. ... my son hath made a league with the son
of Jesse ... my son hath stirred up my servant . . .
One of the men about him, Doeg (identified as an Edomite), had
seen David in Nob and so informed Saul. The furious king jumped
at once to the conclusion that the priests were conspiring with David
(although the Biblical version shows Ahimelech to have helped David
under the impression that David was on state business for the king).
Saul had felt it impolitic to move directly against the influential Samuel,
but the relatively weak contingent of prophets and priests under
Ahimelech seemed fair game.
Saul marched against Nob, took and destroyed the city, then ordered
the eighty-five priests slaughtered. No Israelite dared perform the task,
but Doeg the Edomite did it. One son of Ahimelech, Abiathar,
escaped, however, and eventually joined David. He was the last sur-
vivor of the old line of Shiloh, the great-great-grandson of Eli.
Adullam
Meanwhile, David had finally made his way to Judah and was
joined by members of his tribe:
1 Samuel 22:1. David . . . escaped to the cave Adullam: and
. . . all his father's house . . . went down thither to him.
1 Samuel 22:2. And every one that was in distress ... in debt . . .
discontented, gathered themselves unto him; . . . there were with
him about four hundred men.
Adullam is in the Judean hill country about fifteen miles from
Bethlehem and only two miles southeast of the place where David is
described as having killed Goliath. In that stronghold he fortified him-
self and became the leader of a guerrilla band. What followed was
virtually war between David and Israel.
292
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In this war, Israel was much the stronger and David survived only by
skillful evasion tactics, moving from place to place and remaining al-
ways one step ahead of the vengeful and remorseless Saul. David
fully realized that war as conducted in those days (and sometimes in
our own) extended death to the families of the enemy, so he took his
parents for safekeeping to Moab. (This tends to reflect the possibility
that David was part Moabite by ancestry; see page 265.)
Ziklag
A number of tales are told of the futile hunt of Saul after David, and
the Biblical writer takes obvious delight in the cleverness of David in
eluding the pursuit
Nevertheless, it seemed clear to David that he could not count on
his luck holding forever. Sooner or later, a misstep would leave him
surrounded by overwhelming forces. He decided, under this pressure,
to join the Philistines as the only way of securing adequate protection:
1 Samuel 27:2. And David . . . passed over with ... six hundred
men . . . unto Achish . . . king of Goth.
Achish could only be pleased to take into his service a tried captain
with a desperate band of men who could be viewed as deadly enemies
of Saul. In a sense, Judah, having allied itself with Saul against the
Philistines, was now allying itself with the Philistines against Saul.
Achish as part of the bargain gave David what would, in medieval
times, have been called a fief of his own:
1 Samuel 27:6. Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day . . .
Ziklag was a city at the southern border of Judah, in what had
once been counted as Simeonite territory, but which was now still
under Philistine domination. Its exact site is unknown, but the best
guess seems to be that it was about twenty miles southwest of Gath
and a dozen miles from the sea.
David's role as a mercenary leader in the service of the Philistines
was acutely embarrassing to the Biblical writers. They take pains to as-
sure the reader that while Achish thought David was raiding Israelite
outposts in Judah, David was really raiding the Amalekites and other
1 SAMUEL 293
nomad tribes of the desert. It seems unlikely that Achish could pos-
sibly have been fooled in this manner. It is reasonable to suppose,
rather, that if David was serving as a mercenary, he did what he was
hired to do.
It is interesting that in the course of his Philistine service, David
is nowhere referred to by the Philistines as the slayer of Goliath.
This is rather suggestive of the non-historical nature of that famous
duel.
Mount Gilboa
Gilboa
The Philistines saw their chance now. Judah was alienated from Saul
over the matter of David, and the priestly party had been offended
past repair, thanks to the slaughter at Nob. The time was ideal for a
renewed attack on Israel.
1 Samuel 28:4. And the Philistines gathered themselves together,
and came and pitched in Shunenr, and Saul gathered all Israel to-
gether, and they pitched in Gilboa.
Mount Gilboa, a mountain ridge about ten miles long, with its
highest point about 1700 feet above sea level, is in northern Israel
about seven miles west of the Jordan River, and some forty miles
north of Gibeah.
294 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Shunem, where the Philistines were encamped, lay some ten miles
to the northwest. It is only five miles south of Mount Tabor, where
Barak had once gathered the forces of northern Israel against Sisera.
Saul feared the worst and turned for advice to the priests. They
would not help him and Samuel, who might in this time of national
emergency have had the greatness to be reconciled, was recently dead.
Saul, in desperation, sought out a practitioner of the older Canaanite
cults. Upon inquiring, he was told:
1 Samuel 28:7. . . . Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar
spirit at En-dor.
A familiar spirit is one who serves the human being calling upon
it (the Latin famulus means "servant"). Saul sought to obtain advice
from Samuel by having this spirit bring him from the dead.
This woman with the familiar spirit is the well-known "witch of
Endor." The town of Endor is about two miles from Shunem, midway
between the latter town and Mount Tabor. Its only importance in
history or in the Bible is its connection with the witch in this one
chapter.
To get to the witch of Endor, Saul had to disguise himself and
pass through the enemy lines. It served him nothing, however. The
witch's magical rites resulted in a prophecy of disaster (as was logical,
considering the obvious desperation and despair of Saul) and that
prophecy further intensified the despair. Saul and the Israelite army
was broken in morale before ever the fight began.
The Biblical narrator pauses here to explain in considerable detail
that David (Israel's national hero) did not take part in the disastrous
battle that followed. David offered to fight with the Philistine armies,
but the Philistine leaders would not have it They feared that in the
heat of the battle, David might attempt to improve his own situation
by defecting to Saul. David was forced to return to Ziklag and there
he was soon fully engaged in reversing a temporary victory of the
Amalekites.
The Philistines then attacked the Israelite encampment on Gilboa
and won a complete victory. Jonathan was killed and Saul committed
suicide. The battle of Gilboa and the death of Saul are thought to
have taken place in 1013 b.c. Saul, therefore, had reigned fifteen
years.
1 SAMUEL
2 95
Beth-shan
At one blow, all the hard-won gains of Saul were destroyed. The
Philistines were again in control of virtually all Israelite territory west
of the Jordan. The Rachel tribes, which had been the core of the
national revival, were prostrate.
The extent of the Philistine victory is symbolized by the manner
in which the victors displayed Saul's corpse as a means of expressing
their contempt for the beaten king and destroying what remained of
Israelite morale:
1 Samuel 31:10. . . . and they [the Philistines] fastened his
body to the wall of Beth-shan.
Beth-shan was an important Canaanite center about six miles north-
east of Mount Gilboa. It had been a Philistine outpost ever since
the battle of Aphek and was probably the center of Philistine power
in the regions to the north of the Rachel tribes; a power Saul had
never been able to break. (It is very probable that Saul was never
really king over more than the Rachel tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim,
and Manasseh, at the most. To the north and west lay the Philistines,
to the south Judah.)
But there was the east, too. The Trans-Jordanian tribes had been
allied with Saul since the battle against the Ammonites at Jabesh-
gilead. Jabesh-gilead, which lay about a dozen miles southeast of Beth-
shan, remembered Saul's service to them particularly, and now repaid
it in the only way they could. They mounted an attack against Beth-
shan, rescued Saul's body, and buried it with all due honor.
And thus, with the death of Saul and with honor, at least, saved,
though all else seemed lost, the Book of 1 Samuel comes to an end.
The Empire of David and Solomon
10. 2 SAMUEL
HEBRON • MAHANAIM • MICHAL * ZION ' TYRE • VALLEY OF REPHAIM "
BAALE • MOAB • AMMON • MEPHIBOSHETH • URIAH THE HITTITE • ABSALOM •
KIDRON • SH1MEI • HUSHAI 1 SHEBA * ARAUNAH
Hebron
Hebron
With the death of Saul and the smashing defeat of Israel, the
Philistines controlled all of Canaan west of the Jordan. There wasn't
even, for the moment, a nucleus of resistance in the hill country
of the Rachel tribes where, for so many years before the coming
of the monarchy, Samuel had kept alive the hopes of Israel.
There was David, to be sure, but he was a man of Judah who
had been leading a guerrilla war against Saul and the kingdom of
298
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Israel, and was therefore not a man to whom patriotic Israelites could
easily turn. Besides, at the moment of Saul's death, David was actually
a Philistine vassal.
Yet it was not as a mere Philistine vassal that David viewed himself.
His first step was to establish his clear leadership over Judah at least:
2 Samuel 2:3. And his men that were with him did David bring
up . . . and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron.
2 Samuel 2:4. And the men of Judah came, and there they
anointed David king over the house of Judah . . .
David reigned as king of Judah in Hebron from 1013 to 1006 b.c.
David's assumption of the kingship would not have been possible
before the battle of Gilboa, for Saul would quite naturally have viewed
an independent Judah under a strong king as a threat to himself and
would have taken steps to crush David.
As it was, David was free not only from Israelite interference but
even from Philistine hostility. Presumably the Philistines felt him to
be a safe puppet and considered his kingship a device to distract and
further divide the subject peoples over whom they now ruled.
David, however, in choosing Hebron for his capital had selected a
well-fortified town in a thoroughly defensible hill area in the center
of Judah. He would not be easily dislodged if it came to war between
himself and the Philistines.
To prepare for that war— which David knew to be inevitable, if
the Philistines did not— David set about winning over the followers
of the dead Saul and the remnant of those who still cherished the
hope of an independent Israel. David aspired to leadership of the
Hebrew tribes generally.
Mahanaim
Yet the Israelite kingdom was not quite wiped out, either. Saul had
had four sons. The three oldest had died at Gilboa:
1 Samuel 31:2. . . . and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Afain-
adab, and Malchishua, Saul's sons.
but there remained the fourth son, Ish-bosheth. Abner, Saul's general
in chief, who had survived the battle of Gilboa, fled with Ish-bosheth
to safety across the Jordan:
2 SAMUEL 299
Mahanaim
2 Samuel 2:8. . . . Abner . . . took Ish-bosheth the son of Saul,
and brought him over to Mahanaim;
2 Samuel 2:9. And made him king . . .
The Trans-Jordanians might be expected to be fiercely loyal to the
house of Saul in memory of that king's vigorous rescue of Jabesh-
gilead. Since the Philistines apparently saw no profit to be gained by
extending their lines of communication in a perilous advance across
the Jordan (something that had once served to destroy Ephraim; see
page 247), Ish-bosheth and Abner were momentarily safe.
The exact location of Mahanaim in the Trans-Jordan is not known.
Some place it south of the Jabbok River and others north. One guess
is that it was located at a point some four miles east of Jabesh-gilead.
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Michal
David, the new king of Judah, began a course of difficult negotiation
with Abner in an attempt to establish a united kingdom. Unfortu-
nately, David's general in chief, Joab, was a war hawk who felt that
only outright conquest was the course to pursue. He forced a war in
which the Israelite army was defeated.
The weakening kingdom of Ish-bosheth held out, however, and
David's purposes were blunted. He did not want to rule by right of
conquest, with the certainty of rebellion afterward. He hoped, rather,
for a legal accession to power in the hope of founding a permanently
united kingdom.
Fortunately for David, Abner quarreled with Ish-bosheth and began
to dicker with David behind his own monarch's back. David, sensing
the coming of victory, set his price. In return for peace and, pre-
sumably, for a high post for Abner in the united kingdom, David
said:
2 Samuel 3:13. . . . Thou shalt not see my face, except thou first
bring Michal SauTs daughter . . .
2 Samuel 3:14. . . . which I espoused . . .
Michal had married David in the days when Saul was firm on
his throne and David had served as a successful military leader under
him. After David's flight from court, Michal had been given in marriage
to someone else.
David's intent here is clear. As husband to Michal and son-in-law
to the dead Saul, he would gain a kind of legal right to the succession
to the throne of Israel. If, in particular, he were to have a son by
Michal, that son would represent the fusion of the houses of Saul
and of David and he could eventually be expected to reign over both
kingdoms in peace and legality.
Michal was delivered to David by an Ish-bosheth too weak to dare
refuse and Abner proceeded to make his alliance with David. The
implacable Joab, however, sought out Abner and killed him. This
threatened to upset the apple cart for Abner was highly regarded by
the Israelites. David avoided disaster only by a public act of contrition.
Some at Ish-bosheth's court could now see the inevitable and two
2 SAMUEL 3OI
of the army leaders assassinated the Icing and brought his head to
David. David quickly disassociated himself from this crime, too, execut-
ing the assassins.
But no grown son of Saul remained and the despairing Israelites
could see that their only safety lay now in the hands of the shrewd
king of Judah:
2 Samuel 5:3. So all the elders of Israel came to the king to
Hebron; and king David made a league with them . . . and they
anointed David king over Israel.
The united kingdom over which David thus came to rule in 1006 b.c.
is called Israel in the Bible, but the kingdom was never really single.
The two halves of the nation were never truly amalgamated. Israel
remained conscious of its greater sophistication and wealth as com-
pared to the rustic Judah and resented being governed by a dynasty
of Judah. It might be best to consider David, and his son after
him, to be kings of a dual monarchy, Israel-Judah.
Zion
Having achieved legal rule over Israel as well as Judah, David wanted
to cement that rule in the will of the people generally. To gain that,
David realized he would have to give up Hebron as his capital, for
that city was far too closely identified with Judah. David could not
afford to have himself considered nothing more than a man of Judah.
Nor could he transfer his government into Israel itself, for if that
gained the approval of the Israelites, it might lose him Judah, and
Judah was the core of his strength.
But between the territory of Judah and Israel, and belonging to
neither, was the city of Jerusalem. If that were David's capital it could
satisfy both parts of the dual monarchy since it would represent a
kind of neutral territory.
Furthermore, it was still occupied by a Canaanite tribe, the Jeb-
usites, so that its existence represented an inconvenient barrier be-
tween the two halves of the kingdom, while its conquest would be
a national victory hailed by both halves alike.
Finally, Jerusalem held an extremely strong position, as was evi-
denced by the fact that the Jebusites had kept their ground steadily
302
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Zion and the City of David
against all efforts on the part of the Israelites to dislodge them. If
David could take it, it would prove an equally sure stronghold for
him.
For all these excellent reasons of state, Jerusalem was therefore placed
under siege:
2 Samuel 5:6. And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto
the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land . . .
The course of the siege is not clearly given in the following verses,
but the outcome is certain. David won, and the magnitude of his
victory raised his stature as a military leader in Israel as well as Judah,
ensuring his kingship on a wave of national pride.
2 Samuel 5:7. . . . David took the strong hold of Zion: the same
is the city of David.
Zion was the fortified height (about 2440 feet high) within the
town— the place where the defenders could hold out longest. It was
the equivalent of the Athenian Acropolis, for instance. When Zion
2 SAMUEL 303
was taken, Jerusalem was taken. Since it was upon Zion that David
built his palace, it became the "city of David." Later, David's son,
Solomon, was to build the Temple on Zion, so that the hill became
the military, political, and religious center of Israel.
As such, it came to symbolize (especially in poetic language) all
of Jerusalem, or even all of Israel. In the last century, the movement
to restore a Jewish homeland in Palestine has been called "Zionism"
as a result.
There seems no doubt that Zion in located in the southeastern por-
tion of what is now called the "Old City" of Jerusalem. In Christian
times, the tradition arose that Zion lay on a ridge about half a mile to
the west, but this is no longer taken seriously.
The modem city of Jerusalem was divided between Jordan and
Israel in 1948. All of the "Old City," which is on the site of ancient
Jerusalem, including Zion, became part of Jordan then.
The "New City" built to the west of the "Old City" was begun
in i860 thanks to the money and drive of the British-Jewish phi-
lanthropist Sir Moses Haim Montefiore. It is now much larger than
the "Old City," with a population three times as numerous. The "New
City" serves as the capital of modern Israel, but it is the "Old City"
that contains the holy relics of the past.
As a result of the Six-day War of 1967, Israel took all of Jerusalem
and declared its determination never to yield any part of it again.
Tyre
The Israelites under David were still largely a pastoral and agri-
cultural people. If David wanted to build an elaborate palace for
himself on his new stronghold of Zion, he had to seek help among
the relatively sophisticated inhabitants of the Canaanite cities.
2 Samuel 5:11. And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David,
and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons: and they built David
an house.
Tyre is a Phoenician city situated on the Mediterranean coast about
twenty miles south of Zidon (Sidon). According to Herodotus, the
Tynans maintained that their city had been founded as far back as
2750 b.c, but undoubtedly local pride was imposing itself on the eager
3°4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Greek tourist. From mention (or lack of mention) in the old Egyptian
records it would seem that Tyre was not founded until 1450 B.C.
and in the beginning was a colony of the still older Zidon.
Originally, Tyre may have been located on the mainland, but its
greatness came when it shifted to a rocky island offshore, making itself
almost immune from conquest and, while its fleet remained in being,
from enforced starvation. Indeed, its name ("Zor" in Hebrew) means
"rock." Nowadays, the old rock upon which Tyre built its greatness
has joined the mainland, thanks to the silting up of the sea between.
The site is now a peninsula on the coast of modern Lebanon, and
is occupied by a town, Souro, with a population of about eight thou-
sand.
Tyre's merchants penetrated the western Mediterranean and even
passed outward into the Atlantic Ocean. As a result of gaining a
monopoly on trade with what was then the far west, Tyre grew rich
and powerful. During the time of the judges, it had been Zidon that
had been the most important of the Phoenician cities (see page 217),
but sometime during the reign of Saul, Tyre began to move ahead.
From then on, till the end of Phoenician history, Tyre remained the
leading city of the region.
The first king of Tyre of whom there is a reliable record is Abibaal,
who came to the throne about 1020 b.c, when Saul reigned in Israel.
He remained on the throne through David's reign. His son, Hiram,
was, in turn, a contemporary of David's son, Solomon. It was Hiram
whose artisans built Solomon's Temple. The importance of Hiram's
role in connection with this supremely important structure sent its
shadow backward in time so that his artisans are reported as having
built David's palace, too, though that was certainly built during the
reign of Hiram's father.
Valley of Rephaim
By now it must have become clear to the Philistines that David
had grown too strong to serve as a safe puppet. His accession to the
kingship of Israel, over and above that of Judah, had undoubtedly
taken place without Philistine permission and must automatically have
meant a break with them:
2 SAMUEL 305
2 Samuel 5:17. . . . when the Philistines heard that they had
anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines came up to
seek David . . .
2 Samuel 5:18. . . . and spread themselves in the valley of Reph-
airru
It would have been wise for the Philistines to have struck at once,
but perhaps the various cities, never firmly united, could not bring
themselves to act until David had captured Jerusalem and by then it
was really too late.
The valley of Rephaim lies between Jerusalem and Bethlehem and
very likely the Philistines placed Jerusalem under siege. That this is
so appears from the further statement:
2 Samuel 5:16. . . . David . . . went down to the hold.
The hold (stronghold) is almost certainly Jerusalem and within that
nearly impregnable fortress, David could allow the Philistines to blunt
their armor uselessly while armies gathered elsewhere in Israel and
he planned his counterattack.
In two separate battles, he defeated them handily. The erstwhile
puppet had become a conqueror and the Philistines fell back upon
their coastal cities. They were never again to control the interior and
David had become undisputed master of the territory of the twelve
tribes of Israel and Judah.
Bade
David realized that it was insufficient to have Jerusalem as the
political center only of the dual monarchy. Among the differences
separating Israel and Judah were variations in religious customs and
traditions. It would be wise, therefore, to take measures to centralize
and unify the religion of the new nation, focus it on Jerusalem, and
build a bridge between the north and south in the form of a common
ritual.
A marvelous opportunity presented itself in connection with the
ark of the covenant, the central object of worship of the Rachel
tribes in the days of the judges. It had been taken from Israel by
the Philistines (see page 272) and ever since had been kept at the
city of Kirjath-jearim on the northern boundaries of Judah, about
306 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
ten miles west of Jerusalem. Why not bring it to Jerusalem, and
establish it as a center of worship? The object was Israelite, the place
was Judean, and both parts of the nation would be satisfied.
2 Samuel 6:2. And David arose, and went with all the people . . .
from Baale of Judah to bring up from thence the ark of God . . .
Baale (or Baale-judah) is used here as an alternate name for Kirjath-
jearim.
Moab
Master in his own land, David's next step was to cast his eyes abroad
for imperial conquests— the common attitude of rulers of the time (and
of our time as well).
The conquest began with Moab, which he reduced to a tributary
nation. Considering David's earlier friendly relations with the Moabites
and his traditional descent from a Moabite woman (see page 265),
we would be curious to know what caused the war, but the Bible
gives no clue:
2 Samuel 8:2. And he [David] smote Moab, and . . .the Moabites
became David's servants and brought gifts.
This event bears a relation to one of the oracles traditionally assigned
to Balaam (see page 186). He had been hired by the king of Moab
to curse Israel and it seemed ironically just to the Biblical writers that
he was forced, in his trance, to curse Moab instead:
Numbers 24:17. . . . there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and
a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the comers of
Moab . . .
This verse has been taken by many Christians to represent a Mes-
sianic prophecy, and to forecast the coming of Jesus and the defeat
by him of idolatry and evil. It is for this reason that the words "Star"
and "Sceptre" are capitalized in the King James Version (but not in
the Revised Standard Version).
A more prosaic possibility is that the oracle (reduced to writing
only in the time of the kingdoms) is a triumphantly nationalistic
reference to David and his Moabite conquest.
2 SAMUEL
Ammon
One by one the neighboring principalities fell before David, whose
foreign wars were uniformly successful.
When a new king acceded to the throne of Ammon, David sent
messages of congratulations as a routine courtesy. The new king, sus-
pecting the messengers of intended espionage, treated them with scorn-
ful disrespect, shaving half their beards and cutting off parts of their
garments. This amounted to a declaration of war.
David treated it as such and the Ammonites formed an alliance
with the Aramaean (Syrian) cities to the north, who also viewed with
alarm the sudden rise of the new kingdom of Israel-Judah.
2 Samuel 10:6. . . . the children of Ammon sent and hired the
Syrians of Beth-rehob, and the Syrians of Zoba . . .
The Aramaeans had entered the area north of Israel (an area called
Syria by the Greeks and retaining that name to this day) after the
fall of the Hittite Empire, mingling, as they did so, with the remnants
of the Hittite people. Their coming was part of the same restless
movement that had brought the Philistines and the Hebrew tribes into
Canaan.
The united forces were defeated by David and his general, Joab.
The Ammonites and Syrians were both conquered, and the Edomites
in the south as well, and by 980 B.C., David ruled an empire that
stretched from the Red Sea to the upper Euphrates. It took up all the
eastern border of the Mediterranean, except for part of the actual
shore which remained in the possession of the Phoenician cities. These
retained their independence but were careful to remain on friendly
terms with David.
David's realm was not large as empires go, covering, at its peak, an
area of only thirty thousand square miles— about the size of the state
of Maine. It was feeble and small compared to the Egyptian and Hit-
tite Empires that preceded it, or the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian
Empires that were to succeed it. Indeed, it existed at all only be-
cause of the accident of history that placed David in the midst of a
short and rare period when there happened to be no great empires
in Asia.
308
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Nevertheless, David's empire remained a period of glory for Israel,
when compared with the centuries before and after, and was looked
back upon with pride and nostalgia by all the later generations that
followed David.
Mephibosheth
If David was extending his sway externally, he had to be at least
equally careful and vigorous in establishing his power internally. He
must have been perfectly aware that Israel was bound to remain res-
tive under a Judean dynasty and that this restiveness might find a
rallying point about someone of the old Israelite dynasty of Saul.
It was customary in ancient monarchies (and in some comparatively
modem ones, too) to remove all remaining members of displaced
dynasties for the sake of the security of the reigning king, or, if one
wanted to express matters more idealistically, for the peace and good
order of the realm.
To murder Saul's descendants in cold blood would have been bad
politically, possibly provoking the civil war David was trying to pre-
vent. The opportunity to do so safely eventually came, however:
2 Samuel 21:1. Then there was a famine in the days of David three
years, year after year . . .
That was David's chance. In the general anxiety to end the famine,
people would assent to actions that might otherwise be strongly dis-
approved—if those actions were taken as being designed to propitiate
an angry Deity. The blame for the famine was therefore carefully
placed by the priesthood:
2 Samuel 21:1. . . . It is for Saul, and for his bloody house,
because he slew the Gibeonites.
The occasion upon which Saul slew the Gibeonites is not specifically
mentioned in the Bible. Such an action on the part of Saul was a
serious violation of the treaty of peace between the Israelites and the
Gibeonites, a peace which, according to tradition, had been made in
the days of Joshua (see page 215). To the Gibeonites, such a violation
would seem to have well deserved the anger of God.
It is also just barely possible that this is a reference to Saul's slaughter
2 SAMUEL 309
of the priests at Nob (see page 290). Abiathar had been the sole
survivor of the massacre and now served as a high priestly official under
David. His own rather understandable animus against the house of
Saul would, in that case, have made him more than willing to co-
operate with David in this respect.
For the official purpose of appeasing the Gibeonites, then, David
hanged seven of the male descendants of Saul, including two sons
(by a concubine) and five grandsons. The rains, of course, eventually
came (they always do) and that seemed to justify the act. To inhibit
the chance of second thoughts on the part of the Israelites once the
famine was over, David labored to keep their good will by paying
somber respects to those who had been executed, burying them with
honor in their ancestral tomb, and transferring the bodies of Saul and
Jonathan to that tomb also.
The male members of the house of Saul seemed done with, but
David was not entirely certain:
2 Samuel 9:1. And David said, Is there yet any that is left of
the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness . . .
This verse appears in the Bible a dozen chapters before the execu-
tion of the seven descendants of Saul, so that the irony is lost. This
event, however, must have come after the executions or David would
not have been forced to search so hard for "any that is left of the house
of Saul."
One member of that house remained. This was Mephibosheth, the
son of Jonathan. He had been five years old at the time of Saul's final
and fatal battle on Mount Gilboa. At the news that Saul and Jonathan
were dead and the army lost, there was wild confusion in the palace
at Gibeah. A nurse fled with Jonathan's youngster and dropped him.
His legs were damaged and he was crippled for the rest of his life.
Mephibosheth was in hiding during David's reign (a course of action
rendered prudent by the executions) but his whereabouts were betrayed
to David, who found that he could not, in this case, readily solve
matters by another execution. First, Mephibosheth was a son of Jona-
than, with whom he had once swom a compact of friendship. Then, to
consider matters more practically, the young man was a cripple and not
likely to attract the loyalty of a rebel force, seeing that he was in no
position to lead an army.
3 io
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
And yet, David did not abandon caution entirely. He allowed
Mephibosheth to live, but he kept him at court and under his eye:
2 Samuel 9:13. So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did
eat continually at the kings table . . .
Uriah the Hittite
Another domestic affair related in detail was the manner in which
David came to make an addition to his harem. The importance of
this lay in the fact that it was a son of David by this new woman who
eventually succeeded to the throne of Israel.
David first saw her bathing on the roof of her house. Much taken
by her appearance, he sent to find out her identity and was told:
2 Samuel 11:3. . . .Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam,
the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
It had been two centuries, now, since the Hittite Empire had dis-
appeared, but their culture lingered. They had been driven out of
Asia Minor, a region in which the Phrygians were now dominant, but
Hittite principalities had been established southward in what is now
Syria. There, mingled with the Aramaeans, the Hittites maintained
themselves for two more centuries until the entire region— Hittites,
Aramaeans, Israelites together— went under the heel of the Assyrian
Empire.
But we are still in David's reign. David, in his northward drive of
conquest, had absorbed these Hittite city-states and it is not surprising
that a number of their soldiers, including Uriah, had entered his service.
From the fact that Uriah is a Hebrew name ("the Lord is light") it
may well be that Uriah had sought preferment by adjusting his re-
ligious beliefs to those of the king and had changed his name to suit.
In any case, he received a poor reward. David appropriated Uriah's
wife and then sent him out to battle (the war against the Ammonites
was proceeding at the time) with instructions to Joab to arrange for
Uriah's death. This was done.
Although the Biblical writers praise David all they can, they cannot
praise this. David is blamed and denounced by Nathan, a religious
leader of the time. The courage of the reproof and the manner in
2 SAMUEL 311
which David accepted that reproof is one of the more moving passages
in the Bible. There are few enough occasions in history, both before
David and since, when an absolute monarch bowed before someone
who clearly set forth the difference between good and evil.
Absalom
David's cautious eye on the house of Saul kept matters safe in that
direction, but when trouble came, it came from an unexpected quarter,
the royal family itself.
Unfortunately, civil wars based on family rivalries were all too com-
mon in the ancient monarchies, and the reasons are not hard to find.
Chiefly, they stemmed from the institution of polygamy, which was
quite widespread at the time, even among the Israelites.
A harem served the king's pleasure and it was also a matter of
status, for the power and glory of the king, and therefore of the people
he ruled, was held to be reflected by the luxury and richness of his
way of life. But polygamy also ensured a large supply of sons and in
an age of high infant mortality, a large supply was required in order
to make it likely that at least one or two might grow to healthy man-
hood and lead the nation after the death of the old king.
The value of this was largely negated, however, by the fact that
there was usually no rigorous rule of descent. Of the royal house, the
strongest, most decisive, or most unscrupulous might seize the throne
by rapid action at the time of the king's death.
To prevent this, and the civil war that often took place thereafter,
the old king might choose a successor, a choice that would carry great
weight with the officialdom of the realm and with the people. To at-
tain such a royal seal of approval, the different women of the harem
would intrigue endlessly.
Sometimes an overeager son, either not certain of the father's bless-
ing, or overcertain of his backing, would try to settle matters by striking
before the death of the old king. It was this which happened in David's
reign.
David's oldest son was Amnon, born while David was still merely
king of Judah and reigning in Hebron. Under ordinary circumstances,
he might be expected to have been the heir. David's second son was
3"
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Chileab, who is not mentioned after the verse recording his birth and
may, therefore, have died young. His third son was Absalom.
Both Amnon and Absalom were full-grown men in the latter part of
David's reign; both in the prime of life; and both, undoubtedly, with
their eye on the succession. They were half brothers only, being the
sons of different mothers. Under harem conditions, this meant there
was bound to be no feeling of brotherhood between them.
The open break came in connection with Tamar, the full sister
of Absalom and the half sister of Amnon. Amnon brutally raped
Tamar, who fled in shame to the house of Absalom. Absalom, feeling
now he would have popular opinion on his side, waited his chance
to catch Amnon off guard.
Two years passed, during which, no doubt, Amnon felt the danger
had passed, the memory of his crime dimmed. Absalom arranged a
festival to which Amnon and the other princes were invited. Amnon
was deliberately allowed to get drunk and when merriment was at its
height, Absalom had his men strike and Amnon was killed.
That broke up the party, of course, and Absalom, uncertain of his
father's reaction, quickly left the country.
2 Samuel 13:37. But Absalom fled, and went to Talmai . . .
king of Geshur.
Talmai was his mother's father, and Geshur was one of the city-
states to the north. It is usually placed just east of the Sea of Galilee.
Absalom was, however, the oldest surviving son of David and it
was dangerous to leave him in exile. Enemies of Israel could easily
invade the country on the pretext of placing Absalom on the throne
and many in Israel might side with him. The country would then be
divided against an essentially foreign invasion. This may have been in
the mind of Joab, the realistic commander in chief of David's army.
He maneuvered Absalom's return after three years, and his formal
reconciliation with David after two more years.
Absalom was not satisfied, however. He was now David's logical
heir, but could he count on David's blessing? Would not David, mind-
ful of the killing of Amnon, choose another of his sons for the king-
ship?
Absalom determined to take no chance, but to prepare for action
on his own. He was popular with the people, because he was good-
looking and because of the natural sympathy he must have gained
2 SAMUEL 313
as the aggrieved party in the affair with Amnon. More than that,
Absalom initiated a careful and deliberate campaign to ingratiate him-
self with the people by display of affability and graciousness and by a
studied appearance of concern for their problems.
2 Samuel 15:6. . . .so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of
Israel.
After four years (the King James Version says "forty" but this is
widely considered a mistake and the Revised Standard Version says
"four") he felt the time had come. He received permission to visit
Hebron on what seemed a harmless pretext and once there, he had
himself declared king and raised the standards of rebellion.
Undoubtedly, he had paved the way in Hebron and many were
prepared, in advance, to back him. It is interesting that it was in
Hebron, the Judean center, that Absalom made his first open move.
Apparently, Absalom had strong Judean backing. Why this should be
so the Bible does not specifically say. One might guess, however, that
David throughout his reign had been concerned to win over the good
will of the Israelites and had leaned over backward to avoid favoring
his own Judeans. And there might well have been a strong Judean
party which resented this and which would have preferred a king
under whom a straightforward Judean hegemony over the empire might
have been arranged.
Amasa, a Judean and, in fact, a cousin of Joab and a somewhat
more distant relative of David himself, served as Absalom's general.
Ahithophel, a native of the Judean city of Giloh, also defected to
Absalom. He had been a member of David's council and had a formi-
dable reputation for wisdom.
Later in the book, when the more eminent of David's soldiers are
listed, mention is made of:
2 Samuel 23:34. . . . Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite.
This Eliam might conceivably be the same Eliam earlier mentioned
as the father of Bathsheba. It might therefore be that Ahithophel was
the grandfather of the woman who turned out to be David's favorite
wife, and the great-grandfather of the man who turned out to be
David's successor. It doesn't seem likely that in that case, he would
defect to a son of David who was no relative of his own. On the
other hand, he might have had no expectation that his own descendant
3*4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
would someday be king and he might have experienced humiliation
at the highhanded manner in which David had brought his grand-
daughter into the royal harem. There is no way of deciding this.
Kidron
Valley of the Kidron
David reacted at once. Absalom had prepared his net carefully and
Jerusalem was unsafe. The old king's one chance was to get out into
the open and across the Jordan where he might gather an army. Time
could be on his side if he could snatch time. The people might grow
disenchanted with Absalom; they might quail at the thought of at-
tacking David if David did not at once succumb; they might even
remember that the old king had found Israel and Judah in the grip of
the Philistines and had raised them to empire, and might grow
ashamed of their rebellion.
With his household, then, his staff and his armed bodyguard, he
left the city:
2 SAMUEL 315
2 Samuel 15:23. . . . and all the people passed over: the king also
himself passed over the brook Kidron . . . toward the way of the
wilderness.
Jerusalem is bounded on the east by the Kidron valley, which is
now dry but which, in Biblical times, was the bed of a small stream,
the brook Kidron, which flowed south into the Dead Sea.
Having crossed the Kidron, David and his retinue mounted the line
of hills to the east.
2 Samuel 15:30. And David went up by the ascent of Mount
Olivet . . .
Mount Olivet, or, as it is better known, the Mount of Olives, is a
ridge about two and a half miles long, running north and south about
half a mile east of Jerusalem and separated from that city by the Kid-
ron valley. The highest part of Mount Olivet, due east of Zion, is about
half a mile high.
Shimei
Dangers multiplied, for it was not merely a question of David's
replacement by Absalom, but of the disintegration of the barely estab-
lished empire. On Mount Olivet, David was overtaken by the servant
of Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan and only living direct descendant
of Saul. According to the servant, Mephibosheth was remaining in
Jerusalem in the hope of being called to the throne. After all, if, with
Judean support, Absalom gained the throne, it might be the throne of
Judah only, and Israel, regaining its independence, might turn to its
older dynasty.
The extent of this danger was made plainer in Bahurim (a town
whose exact site is unknown but which lay somewhere between Jerusa-
lem and the Jordan). Shimei lived there, a Benjamite, a collateral rela-
tive of Saul, and presumably a man of influence in the area:
2 Samuel 16:5. . . . Shimei . . . came forth, and cursed still as
he came.
2 Samuel 16:6. And he cast stones at David . . .
2 Samuel 16:7. And thus said Shimei . . .
2 Samuel 16:8. The Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood
3 i6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the
Lord hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy
son: and behold thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art
a bloody man.
It sounds very much as though Shimei is referring to the execution
of Saul's descendants (not described till several chapters later). The
soldiers with David offered to kill Shimei, but David did not allow
that. Shimei's curses were doing him little harm but what Shimei
now had the courage to say in David's adversity, others might be
thinking, and an unnecessary outrage against Shimei might simply
serve to swell Absalom's army with Benjamites.
Hushai
What strength David possessed now lay in the fact that the core of
his army, his elite troops, remained faithful and were with him. They
were few in number but they could be counted on to give a good
account of themselves.
Ahithophel, however, advised Absalom to attack David at once, even
while the king was retiring in disorder toward the Jordan and before
he could cross the river and begin organizing an army. Move now,
while David is off balance, he urged in effect; strike while the iron is
hot.
Now Absalom made his fatal mistake.
2 Samuel 17:5. Then said Absalom, Call now Hushai . . . and
let us hear likewise what he saith.
Hushai was another of David's counselors, but was not a Judean.
He was of the city of Archi, which was included in the territory of
Ephraim. Unlike Ahithophel, he had not defected to Absalom but had
been directed by David to remain in Jerusalem as what we would
today call a "double agent."
Hushai gave the advice calculated to give David the one thing he
needed— time. Hushai warned Absalom that a hasty attack on David
might lead to a preliminary defeat by David's hardened warriors. The
defeat might be minor and of no military significance but to the
people it would prove that David was still the invincible conqueror
2 SAMUEL 317
and they would lose heart and melt away from Absalom. Therefore,
said Hushai, do not attack till you have built up a large army.
Absalom took Hushai's advice and waited to build up his large army
and that was his end. David got safely over the Jordan, where the
Trans-Jordan tribes rallied round him as they had rallied round Ish-
bosheth, the son of Saul, a generation earlier. Ahithophel, deciding
that victory for Absalom was now impossible, killed himself.
David's newly organized army, under his veteran officers, then
struck back across the Jordan, meeting Absalom's hastily raised and
poorly led levies, and utterly defeated them. Absalom was taken, and
although David had ordered that he be unharmed, the practical Joab
thought otherwise. A rebel left alive was one who would rebel again
someday, and so he had Absalom killed.
David now returned to Jerusalem and resumed the undisputed king-
ship. Shimei, the Benjamite who had cursed David, came quickly to
make his submission, while Mephibosheth came also, maintaining that
he had been slandered, and that no thought of assuming the king-
ship had ever occurred to him.
David, aware that the victory did not necessarily wipe out the sources
of disaffection, was careful to take no revenge. Shimei was allowed to
live; Mephibosheth was taken back into favor. This was intended to
appease the Israelite nationalists. As a measure of reconciliation with
the Judean nationalists, he accepted Amasa, who had served as Ab-
salom's general, as commander in chief in place of Joab. (Presumably,
David did not forget Joab's action in killing Absalom against orders.)
Sheba
David's mildness was of no help. Certain factions among the Israel-
ites, disappointed at the re-establishment of the Judean dynasty over
the united kingdom, revolted. Their leader was Sheba, a Benjamite
and therefore of the tribe of Saul. He rallied Israel about him on a
purely nationalistic slogan:
2 Samuel 20:1. . . . and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have
no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse:
every man to his tents, O Israel.
3 i8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Once again David's army had to take the field. The resourceful
and unscrupulous Joab found, in this renewed war, an opportunity to
gain his generalship once more. He assassinated Amasa and took over
the army, leading it northward. Sheba retreated hastily but was caught
and trapped in Abel of Beth-maacah, a city in the north, just across
the Jordan River from Dan. The inhabitants of the city killed Sheba
in order to prevent the otherwise inevitable sack, and the rebellion
came to an end.
Araunah
The tale of David's reign is now essentially over. The Book of 2
Samuel concludes with a summarizing list of David's heroes and of
some of their exploits, with a couple of psalms attributed to David,
and with one final tale included in the last chapter of 2 Samuel because
of its connection with the chief accomplishment of David's successor.
This last tale begins with a census:
2 Samuel 24:1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled
against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number
Israel and Judah.
Why a census is treated, in this chapter, as a sin, is uncertain. Twice,
a census was supposed to have taken place in the wilderness before the
entry into Canaan (see page 165) and neither time was this described
as a sin. Moses himself had, according to the Biblical story, instituted
it.
Of course, in ancient times, a census was not a regular procedure
designed to provide the statistical data necessary to help guide the
destinies of a nation. It was rather a course of procedure taken at
irregular periods for one of two specific reasons: a reorganization of
the military draft, or a reorganization of the system of taxation.
The former purpose is indicated by the fact that in the census
described at the end of the Book of 2 Samuel only men of military
age were counted:
2 Samuel 24:9. . . . and there were in Israel eight hundred thou-
sand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of judah were
five hundred thousand.
2 SAMUEL 319
This estimate (a very rough one, for methods of enumeration in
ancient times are by no means to be compared with those of today) may
be rather exaggerated for it indicates a total population of about four
million, or very nearly the combined population of Israel and Jordan
today.
That a census might also be used for taxation is best indicated in
the famous chapter in the Gospel of St. Luke which begins:
Luke 2:1. And . . . there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus
that all the world should be taxed.
and this involved first of all an enrollment of individuals, or what
amounts to a census. The verse in the Revised Standard Version is
given as "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world
should be enrolled," while the New Catholic Edition translates the
verse as "a decree went forth from Caesar Augustus that a census of
the whole world should be taken."
In either case, whether for a military draft or for taxation, a census
was bound to be unpopular and, if any natural disaster followed, those
who opposed it would be sure to point to that as evidence of divine
displeasure.
In this case the disaster was a pestilence that is recorded as killing
seventy thousand men. The Biblical writers describe the occasion
dramatically by having Cod stop the angel of death when Jerusalem
was on the point of being destroyed. The exact position of the angel
at the time of the order to halt is given:
2 Samuel 24:16. . . . And the angel of the Lord was by the
threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.
2 Samuel 24:17. And David . . . saw the angel that smote the
people . . .
David therefore purchased that threshing place and built an altar
upon it. His son Solomon was later to build the Temple upon this
same site, and it is tempting to think that the story of David and the
census was embroidered with supernatural detail by the later writers
in order to supply additional sanctification of the ground upon which
the Temple stood.
11. 1 KINGS
ADONIJAH • THE PHARAOH [OF SOLOMON] * TIPHSAH • THE HOUSE OF THE
LORD ' OPHIR • SHEBA • TARSHISH * HAD AD THE EDOMITE ■ REZON • AHIJAH *
SHISHAK ' REHOBOAM • JEROBOAM • BEN-HAD AD • SAMARIA * JEZEBEL *
ELIJAH * ZAREPHATH * MOUNT CARMEL • JEZREEL * BEN-HAD AD H * APHEK •
NABOTH ' RAMOTH-GILEAD
Adonijah
The First Book of Kings opens in the year 973 B.C., the fortieth
and last year of the reign of David. The old king had clearly only a
short time to live and the matter of the succession came up again.
Now that the three oldest sons of David were dead, the fourth,
Adonijah, seemed (to himself, certainly) the natural successor.
1 Kings 1:5. Then Adonijah . . . exalted himself, saying, I wQl
be king . . .
To be sure, David had not indicated him as successor, but then
neither had he indicated anyone else— at least not openly. Adonijah
made sure of the support of the army and of the priesthood by en-
listing on his side Joab, the commander in chief, and Abiathar, the
survivor of the slaughter at Nob and the last priest of the house of
Eli.
Both Joab and Abiathar were now old men, however, and their
power was on the decline. In opposition to Joab was the younger
soldier Benaiah, captain of the king's bodyguard, and in opposition to
Abiathar was the younger priest Zadok.
The younger men had their own candidate, Solomon, the son of
Bathsheba, who had retained her influence over David and who was
willing to take the chance of facing the old king concerning this matter.
On their side, also, was Nathan, head of the prophetic party.
The Empire of David and Solomon
3"
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
David was not proof against such pressures and it might well have
been his own intention to appoint Solomon his successor. In any case,
he was forced to act now, and Solomon was anointed king with all the
necessary ritual and trapping and, most important of all, with the
official blessing of David.
Upon news of this event, the feast being given by Adonijah to
celebrate his accession to the throne broke up at once. In the face
of David's will, there was no further argument, and popular support
shifted at once to Solomon.
Once David actually died and Solomon sat upon the throne, the
new king took action to make sure that no chance of civil war over
the succession remained. Adonijah and Joab were both killed at
Solomon's orders. Shimei, who still represented the remnant of those
who harked back to the dynasty of Saul (see page 315) was first
confined to Jerusalem and, when he left on some apparently in-
nocent occasion, was taken and executed.
Abiathar was exiled to his home city of Anathoth in Benjamin,
and Zadok was made High Priest in his place. The descendants of
Zadok remained the head of the Jerusalem priesthood through the
history of the kingdom thereafter. In this way, Solomon was seated
firmly on the throne.
1 Kings 2:46. . . . And the kingdom was established in the hand
of Solomon.
The Pharaoh [of Solomon]
Israel had now reached a peak of power and prestige which enabled
Solomon to take his place as a monarch of the first rank. In gathering
a harem, he need not confine himself to local girls and to minor
princesses only, but could aspire to those of the highest prestige.
1 Kings 3:1. And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of
Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter and brought her into the city of
David . . .
This is the first mention of any Pharaoh since the one who
drowned in the Red Sea and as usual no name is given.
The social prestige of marriage into the family of Pharaoh is great
and at the time it must have made a triumphant impression. The
1 KINGS 323
slaves who had fled Egypt centuries before now had grown so power-
ful that their king was worthy of a marriage alliance with Pharaoh.
The show was much more than the actuality, however, for Egypt
was by no means the Egypt it had been. The 20th dynasty, which had
vegetated along under its line of Rameses (see page 220) while the
judges dominated Canaan, came to an end about 107; B.C. in the life-
time of Samuel and a hundred years before the accession of Solomon.
Since then, Egypt had disintegrated. The Pharaohs of the 21st
dynasty ruled only the Nile delta, while upper Egypt was under the
domination of the priests of Ammon, who ruled as virtual monarchs
from Thebes, the capital of the conquering monarchs of the great
18th dynasty.
The Egyptian capital under the 21st dynasty was Tanis or Zoan,
the city which, seven centuries earlier, had served as the capital of the
Hyksos. About the time of David's death, Psusennes II ascended
the Egyptian throne. His position as Pharaoh of the delta was not
enviable. He had to face the constant hostility of the Theban priests
and, in addition, there was a growing pressure from the desert tribes
to the west.
No doubt he felt that an alliance with Solomon, via the usual route
of a dynastic marriage, might secure his eastern flank and give him some
dependable military help if this was needed. He was willing to pay for
it, too, for he sent an expedition to capture a Canaanite city, Gezer,
in Philistine territory and gave it to Solomon as a dowry with his
daughter. It is the single recorded territorial annexation of Solomon's
reign.
Solomon's army was not, in actual fact, called upon, but the then
high prestige of Israel might have helped, for Psusennes retained his
shaky throne for well over thirty years, almost to the end of Solomon's
reign.
Tiphsah
The two Books of Kings reached their final form four centuries after
the great days of Solomon, at a time when Jerusalem had been ruling
over sharply restricted territory for a long time and when its very life
seemed at the mercy of powerful empires to the east. The reign of
Solomon, at the time in which Jerusalem's sway over surrounding
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
territory was at its maximum, is looked back upon with rhapsodic
delight. The extent of Solomon's kingdom is given:
1 Kings 4:24. ... he had dominion over all the region on this
side the river, from Tiphsah even to Azzah [Gaza], over all the
kings on this side the river: and he had peace on all sides round
about him.
The river is clearly the Euphrates; no one doubts that. Tiphsah
(meaning "ford") is commonly identified as the city known to the
Greeks as Thapsacus, which is some three hundred miles northeast of
Jerusalem. There is indeed a ford at that spot and since it controlled
the most convenient place for crossing the middle Euphrates, it flour-
ished and was, in Greek times, a sizable and prosperous city.
No doubt, Solomon's hold that far north was quite tenuous, and rep-
resented nothing more than the fact that the cities of Syria paid him
tribute and were otherwise undisturbed in their local rule.
Nevertheless, the boundaries of Solomon's kingdom, from Tiphsah
to Gaza, remained the ideal boundary in the eyes of the later
historians. (Each nation seems to consider its "rightful boundaries"
those it happened to hold at the peak of its power. Naturally, there
is overlapping in every direction with the "rightful boundaries" of
every neighboring power.)
In a way, the reign of Solomon is the climax of early Biblical
history. The promise of Canaan is fulfilled. The escaping slaves from
Egypt have made their way to Canaan, conquered it, held it, built it
into an empire and now finally, under Solomon:
1 Kings 4:2;. . . . Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under
his vine and under his jig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba . . .
One might almost be tempted to heave a sigh of relief at such
happiness after so many tribulations and to let it stand as a "they
lived happily ever after" ending, except that there are no endings in
history. Life goes on and a plateau of power will recede.
The House of the Lord
If Solomon's reign was the climax of early Israelite history, the
building of the Temple was the climax of Solomon's reign in the
1 KINCS
3 2 5
Sib Chambers
TEMPLE
Holy of Holies
Harm
■Holy Place
-Se»of Bronze
SOLOMON'S
TEMPLE AREA
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
SOLOMON'S
- PALACE
Jhrvne Porch
Porch of Pillars
HOUSE OF
LEBANON
The House of the Lord
eyes of the Biblical writers. David had planned a Temple but his
reign had been too stormy to give him the required years of peace it
would have taken to build it. Solomon had those years of peace.
What Solomon needed were the necessary raw materials and skilled
artisans and for both of these he could turn to Phoenicia. Hiram had
just become king of Tyre in 969 B.C., four years after Solomon had
ascended the throne and he, too, was ready for a large project. (Hiram
was so famous to the Biblical writers in connection with the Temple
that he was anachronistically placed on the throne of Tyre in David's
time— see page 304.)
1 Kings 5:2. And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying . . .
1 Kings 5:5. . . . behold, I purpose to build an house unto the
name of the Lord my God . . .
1 Kings 6:1. And it came to pass ... in the fourth year of
Solomon's reign . . . that he began to build the house of the Lord.
Undoubtedly, Hiram, a shrewd businessman, was well aware that
his neighbor's ambitious plans would redound to the profit of Tyre,
326
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
for he would supply the necessary timber and workmen at his own
price and it would be a high one:
1 Kings 5:7. And it came to pass, when Hiram heard the words
of Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly . . ,
There is nothing wrong, in itself, in a building program. Fitted to
the economy of a nation, it supplies employment and builds na-
tional pride. Unfortunately, the temptation is always present to go
too far and Solomon (like many other monarchs before and after—
as, for example, Rameses II of Egypt and Louis XIV of France) went
too far.
For one thing, the building of the Temple meant the lavish use of
forced labor:
1 Kings 5:13. And king Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel;
and the levy was thirty thousand men.
1 Kings 5:14. And he sent them to Lebanon . . .
The Revised Standard Version translates the verse, "King Solomon
raised a levy of forced labor out of all Israel."
Later it is stated that it was the remaining Canaanites only who
were thus enslaved in fulfillment of the curse recorded as having
been pronounced on Ham (see page 45).
1 Kings 9:22. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make
no bondmen . . .
This last, however, sounds like a defense against the list of grievances
presented by the Israelites who broke away from the Davidic dynasty.
It seems much more likely that the labor gangs were formed from
all available sources, from Israelites as well as Canaanites. The same
might be said for taxes, which, Solomon saw to it, were collected
efficiently.
The amount by which Solomon overextended his resources in his
building program is indicated by the fact that he could not pay
Hiram all the accumulated debt in either cash or goods but had to
cede land as well. Once the building program was complete:
1 Kings 9:11. . . . king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities . . .
The cities thus ceded were part of the tribal holdings of Naphtali
in Israel. This could not help but be offensive to Israelite pride and
1 KINGS 327
was another item in the gathering score against the Davidic dynasty.
The building of the Temple is such a key fact to the Biblical
writers that they give its date not only in terms of Solomon's reign
but in terms of the greater sweep of Israelite history as well:
1 Kings 6:1. And it came to pass in the four hundred and
eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the
land of Egypt . . . that he [Solomon] began to build the house of
the Lord.
This cannot be right Four hundred eighty years before the be-
ginning of the building of the Temple was 1449 b.c. and that was in
the midst of the conquering reign of Thutmose HI, Egypt's most
victorious monarch. To have the Exodus take place then is unthink-
able.
The Biblical writers frequently show themselves to be very number
conscious and, indeed, in Greek and Roman times an almost mystical
number lore grew up among them. This was called "gematria" (a
corruption of the Greek, geometria) and it was by no means unique
to the Jews. Numbers have a fascination for all peoples and mystical
associations and combinations of numbers are to be found in all
cultures. Even the rational Greeks were not immune and the great
philosopher Pythagoras founded a school that simultaneously did great
work in mathematics and foolishly wandered astray after number
mysticism.
The 480-year period may in part have been suggested by counting
the various judges as having ruled consecutively (see page 230) instead
of, in part, concurrently, and the exact figure may have been suggested
by the fact that 480 is equal to 12 multiplied by 40. After all, forty
years can be considered the length of a full generation, and twelve
has the mystical value of being the number of tribes (or, for that
matter, the numbers of signs of the zodiac). What the writers are say-
ing then is that the Temple was built a dozen generations after the
Exodus.
Actually, 480 years is just about double the most likely figure.
Counting from 1211 b.c, the death of Merneptah (see page 143),
the beginning of the building of the Temple turns out to be 242 years
after the Exodus.
Seven years were spent in building the Temple, which was therefore
328
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
finished and dedicated in 962 b.c. and into which the ark of the
covenant was then placed. Solomon also built a palace for himself
and one for his Egyptian queen as well as fortifications for various
towns.
Before leaving the subject, one item in the description of the
Temple furnishings has attached to it an odd bit of mathematical
curiosa. This involves one of the items described as having been
made by a Tyrian metalworker:
1 Kings 7:23. And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the
one brim to the other . . . and a line of thirty cubits did compass
it round about.
The exact function of the "molten sea" is not stated, though it
seems most likely that it was a container for water used in the
various rituals. The interesting point is that its upper rim seems to be
circular in shape with a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference
of thirty cubits. This is impossible, for the ratio of the circumference
to the diameter (a ratio called "pi" by mathematicians) is given here
as 30/10 or 3, whereas the real value of pi is an unending decimal
which begins 3.14159 ... If the molten sea were really ten cubits in
diameter it would have to be just under thirty-one and a half cubits
in circumference.
The explanation is, of course, that the Biblical writers were not
mathematicians or even interested in mathematics and were merely
giving approximate figures. Still, to those who are obsessed with the
notion that every word in the Bible is infallible (and who know a
little mathematics) it is bound to come as a shock to be told that the
Bible says that the value of pi is 3.
Ophir
Solomon used Hiram's help also in building a navy for Israel and
in supplying it with Tyrian sailors, then the best in the world. With
it, Solomon was able to engage in sea trade:
1 Kings 9:28. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence
gold . . . and brought it to king Solomon.
33°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Where Ophir might be is completely unknown but the puzzle of
its whereabouts has never ceased to fascinate Biblical scholars, partly
because of the aura of wealth that lay about it. There are not many
places that serve as sources of gold, after all, and the gold of Ophir
was accounted so fine and high in quality that the proverbial associa-
tion became inevitable, like the cedars of Lebanon, the balm of
Gilead, and the bulls of Bashan.
Thus, Job, in praising wisdom above all else and speaking of how
impossible it is to find a price for it, says:
Job 28:16. It cannot be valued with the gold of Ophir . . .
The one clear hint as to the location of Ophir is given two verses
before this first mention in connection with Solomon's sea trade.
1 Kings 9:26. And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-
geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in
the land of Edom.
Ezion-geber and Eloth (or Elath) stood at the northern tip of the
Gulf of Aqaba (see page 133). Since the independence of modern
Israel, Elath has been built up again and is once more the nation's
Red Sea port.
We might argue then that Ophir was located somewhere that could
be reached by way of the Red Sea. This still leaves the matter rather
wide open. India can be reached by way of the Red Sea and in after-
times, Ophir was located still farther afield, in places which became
famous for riches and wealth— the Far East, even Peru.
And yet the ships of the tenth century b.c. were not fit for long ocean
voyages. The closer Ophir can be located to Israel, the more likely the
location.
The one other place which the Biblical writers pause to describe as a
source of fine gold is Havilah (see page 28). The location of Havilah
is also uncertain but some scholars place it somewhere in southern
Arabia and it seems reasonable to suppose that Ophir is also to be lo-
cated there, perhaps on the site of what is now the kingdom of Yemen.
This is the more probable because the mention of Ophir is followed by
the mention of another kingdom (almost by reflex association, as it
were) which is more surely located in that area.
1 KINGS
Sheba
The penetration of Israel southward brought a return visit from a
monarch of the south:
1 Kings 10:1. And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of
Solomon . . . she came to prove him with hard questions.
The location of Sheba is by no means mysterious. In southwestern
Arabia, on the site of what is now Yemen, there was a kingdom known
to the Arabs as Saba and to the Creeks and Romans as Sabaea. There
seems little doubt that this is the Biblical Sheba. And it might be that
Ophir represents a district of Sheba, for the queen is pictured as
wealthy:
1 Kings 10:2. And she came to Jerusalem with a very great train,
with camels that bare spices, and very much gold, and precious
stones . . .
(Sabaea was so prosperous that Romans called the area Arabia Felix
—"fortunate Arabia"— in comparison with other parts of the peninsula,
which contained one of the most unpleasant deserts in the world.)
However prosaically definite we may be about Sheba itself, there is
little to be said about the queen. There is no record of any particular
queen of Sheba, or of any such visit to Jerusalem, outside the Bible.
Nor is the queen as much as given a name in the Bible. The later Arabs
evolved the myth that her name was Balkis, and she is mentioned by
that name in the Koran.
The modem Ethiopians have a tradition that queen Balkis was
actually the queen of their own nation. This is not as completely odd as
it might sound. Modern Ethiopia is just across the Red Sea from
Sheba (or Yemen) at a point where that sea narrows down to a width
of twenty miles or so. There is rather easy communication between the
two nations and there have been times when Ethiopia dominated
sections of southwestern Arabia. To be sure, this was some twelve
centuries after Solomon but the connection is there to be remembered
with the usual distortion.
The Ethiopians maintain that queen Balkis had a son by Solomon,
and name that son Menelik. From Menelik is supposed to be descended
33*
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the present ruling line of the emperors of Ethiopia. One of the tradi-
tional titles of the Ethiopian emperor, even today, is "Lion of Judah" in
reference to this supposed Judean ancestry.
Tarshish
Solomon's commerce stretched out in another direction as well:
1 Kings 10:22. . . . the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with
the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish,
bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes and peacocks.
Tharshish, more commonly referred to in the Bible as Tarshish, is
sometimes considered as synonymous with Ophir. It is then suggested
that Ophir must be three years journey from Israel and must thus be
someplace distant like the Far East. However, it seems clear that two
different fleets are here being described. There is the "navy of Hiram"
and the "navy of Tharshish"; Solomon has one "with" (together with,
or in addition to) another. The men of Hiram bring goods from
Ophir, and the men of Tarshish bring goods from elsewhere.
Actually, the whereabouts of Tarshish is almost as mysterious as that
of Ophir. There is no hint in the Bible of its location. It is very fre-
quently equated with the district known to the Greeks and Romans as
Tartessus. The chief evidence for this is the similarity in names and the
fact that it is sufficiently far from Jerusalem to make the three-year
term for the round trip and the period of trading seem reasonable.
Tartessus was the name given by the Greeks to that portion of Spain
west of Gibraltar. Its capital city (of the same name) was at the mouth
of the Guadalquivir River, about seventy-five miles northwest of
Gibraltar. It was founded by the Phoenicians about 1200 B.C.; that is,
at the time of the Exodus. It was at the height of its commercial pros-
perity in Solomon's reign. (Eventually, though, all of the commerce of
the western Mediterranean was brought under the control of Carthage,
the most successful of the Phoenician colonies. About 480 B.C., Car-
thage, then at the height of its power, destroyed Tartessus.)
There might be some question as to whether "ivory, and apes and
peacocks" might be found in Spain, but why not? The Barbary ape (not
a true ape) is still to be found in Gibraltar and in ancient times it
must have been more widely spread. As for ivory, there were elephants
in north Africa in ancient times.
i kings 333
Hadad the Edomite
The strength of the land (which Solomon poured freely into his
building projects and his efforts at imperial luxury) declined and this
made it more difficult to retain the hold over the increasingly restless
subject peoples.
Solomon did possess a certain imperial responsibility and attempted
to retain popularity with these peoples through an enlightened religious
policy. He not only allowed them freedom of worship but tried to
demonstrate himself to be king over all his subjects and not over the
Judeans and Israelites alone. He added women of the subject nations
to his harem (intended, and accepted, as an honor) and allowed tem-
ples to be built to their gods for their convenience.
This was undoubtedly good policy (it fits in with our modern no-
tions of religious freedom) but it was viewed with dislike and hostility
by the prophetic party. That hostility grew in the course of the later
centuries and the Biblical writers expressed their opinion of Solomon's
course of action unmistakably:
1 Kings 11:5. For Solomon went after . . . MUcom the abomina-
tion of the Ammonites.
• • • •
1 Kings 11:7. Then did Solomon buUd an high place for Chemosh,
the abomination of Moab . . .
That Solomon's attempts at placating the peoples of the realm were
not unnecessary is shown by the fact that there were rebellions here
and there, marring the idyllic picture of the reign which was drawn in
the earlier chapters. Edom gave trouble from the beginning of Solo-
mon's reign:
1 Kings 11:14. ine ^° r ^ sh ' JTe ^ up an adversary unto Solo-
mon, Hadad the Edomite . . .
Hadad was a member of the old Edomite royal house, who had. sur-
vived the slaughter following Joab's conquest of Edom during David's
reign. He had found sanctuary in Egypt but once David was dead, he
334
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
made his way back to Edom. Exactly how he played his part as "ad r
versary" against Solomon we are not told, but it seems quite reasonable
to suppose he declared himself king of Edom and carried on a continu-
ing guerrilla war with the royal army.
Rezon
There were similar troubles in the north:
1 Kings 11:23. ^nd God stined him [Solomon] up another adver-
sary, Rezon the son of Eliadah . . .
1 Kings 11:24. And he gathered men unto him . . . and they went
to Damascus, and dwelt therein . . .
The Syrian city-states had been placed under tribute by David, but
Solomon's less warlike hand did not suffice to keep them in subjection.
Rezon, gathering a guerrilla band about him, seized Damascus, and
established himself there as an independent power.
Ahijah
Israel's greatest danger, however, was from within. The hostility be-
tween Judah and Israel had never died but was merely sleeping— with
one eye open. That open eye consisted of the prophetic party.
Even in the days of Saul, Israel's first king, there had been the clash
between the royal power and that of the prophets under the leader-
ship of Samuel (see page 283).
Under David and Solomon, with the power, prestige, and glory of
the monarchy at an all-time high, the role of the prophets sank accord-
ingly and they made comparatively little impingement upon history.
Nathan the prophet, however, did not hesitate to beard David and
denounce him to his face in the matter of Uriah the Hittite (see page
310)— and was able to survive the encounter, too, and force the mighty
king to do penance. It was the support of Nathan and the prophetic
party that might have swung the balance to Solomon and against
Adonijah when David lay dying.
Solomon's policy of religious toleration alienated the prophetic party,
1 KINGS
335
particularly those who were of Israelite (rather than Judean) origin.
The prophets of Israel may not even have entirely approved the central-
ization of worship at Jerusalem and the consequent lessening of impor-
tance of the various Israelite shrines. For them, religious feelings went
hand in hand with nationalism.
Ahijah, an Israelite prophet of Shiloh in Ephraim (which, in Eli's
time a century before, had been the home of the most important shrine
in Israel), must have been one of these prophet-nationalists. He had
his eye on Jeroboam, also an Ephraimite, one who held high office un-
der Solomon and who seemed to have the qualities of leadership.
1 Kings 11:29. . . . when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem . . .
the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him . . .
1 Kings 11:30. And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on
him, and rent it . . .
1 Kings 11:31. And he said to Jeroboam . . . thus saith the Lord
. . . Behold I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon . . .
With the backing of the prophetic party and of many disgruntled
Israelites, Jeroboam rose in rebellion.
Shishak
The rebellion failed— for the while— and Jeroboam had to flee, but
he had made himself an Israelite hero and Israel did not forget him.
1 Kings 11:40. . . . And Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, unto
Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solo-
mon.
Egypt had had its own increasing troubles. The 21st dynasty which
ruled the delta came to an end with the death of Solomon's father-in-
law in 940 b.c. Anarchy increased further then, as rival generals seized
at power. One of these was Sheshonk (the Biblical Shishak), who
was a member of a tribe occupying the regions west of the Nile valley.
The whole northern coast of Africa west of Egypt was called Libya
by the Greeks (a name of unknown origin). To the Greek writers on
Egyptian history, therefore, Shishak was a Libyan, and the 22nd dy-
nasty, which he founded, was the "Libyan dynasty."
336 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Shishak's power extended only over the delta; upper Egypt continued
under the rule of the priests of Thebes. Shishak was the only member
of the dynasty who displayed any vigor at all. After him came a series
of rulers who lorded it over separate sections of the delta and quar-
reled among themselves.
Even Shishak could not have been very impressive, for the Bible no-
where refers to him as "Pharaoh," but merely as "king." The impres-
sion is that he was not considered a legitimate Egyptian monarch,
but merely a usurping general. He is the first ruler of Egypt, by the
way, to whom the Biblical writers give an actual name.
Shishak was shrewd enough to recognize that Jeroboam might be a
useful tool in combating or even destroying the power of his neigh-
bor to the northeast and he offered him ready asylum, as a predecessor
had once offered asylum to Hadad the Edomite.
Rehoboam
Solomon, like his father, reigned forty years, dying in 933 B.C. (These
forty-year reigns of David and Solomon are suspiciously even. Each king
reigned a full "generation." Still, the acceptance of Biblical chronol-
ogy in this instance gives rise to no inconsistencies and there is no good
reason to suggest any alternative.)
Solomon must have had many sons but there is no talk of any
problems of succession. Only one son is mentioned and he becomes
the third king of the Davidic dynasty.
1 Kings 11:43. • • ■ an< * Rehoboam his [Solomon's] son reigned
in his stead.
His crowning made him king of Judah only. To become king of
Israel as well, he had to undergo a similar rite at the old holy Ephra-
imite city of Shechem:
1 Kings 12:1. And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were
come to Shechem to make him king.
(Perhaps David and Solomon had to do the same but that is not men-
tioned in the Bible. It is mentioned in Rehoboam's case because of the
events that now transpired.)
The Israelites did not come to the crowning in any compliant mood.
It was not their intention to crown Rehoboam and make him legitimate
Israel and Judah During Rehoboam's Time
338
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
king of Israel unless he would in turn guarantee some relief from re-
pression. They said to him:
1 Kings 12:4. Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore
make thou the grievous service . . . lighter, and we will serve thee.
The young Rehoboam, with deplorable lack of judgment, scorned
gentle speech. He threatened to make the yoke heavier still, and Israel
revolted in an explosion of nationalist fury.
It was Rehoboam's intention to subdue the rebellion by force, but
its strength and violence was surprising. Furthermore, the prophetic
party even in Judah was apparently not entirely unhappy over the split.
A weakening of the royal power meant a strengthening of the prophets.
The Judean prophet Shemaiah counseled against attempting to re-
unite the kingdom by force:
1 Kings 12:24. . . . Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your
brethren the children of Israel . . .
The rebellion was successful, therefore, and the split was permanent.
Rehoboam was left the king of Judah only, though, ironically, the
territory of the tribe of Benjamin (which had given the first royal line
to Israel) remained with Judah, since the prosperity of the Benjamites
now depended on Judah 's one metropolis, Jerusalem, which lay right
at the Benjamite borders.
The united kingdom of Israel-Judah had endured for only three quar-
ters of a century, from 1006 b.c. to 933 B.C., and under two monarchs
only. Now there were two sister kingdoms, Israel to the north and
Judah to the south. (They are sometimes called the northern kingdom
and southern kingdom respectively)
Nor did Rehoboam's troubles end once he had bowed to the inevita-
ble and accepted the secession of Israel. Aside from the fact that bad
blood and border warfare remained between the two kingdoms, Shi-
shak of Egypt seized the opportunity offered him by the chaos on his
borders to attack the divided and weakened nation in the fifth year of
Rehoboam's reign (928 B.C.). He laid siege to Jerusalem, or perhaps
occupied it, and in either case carried off much loot.
1 Kings 14:26. And he [Shishak] took away the treasures of the
house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he . . . took
away all . . .
i kings 339
Not only had Solomon's kingdom broken in two but Solomon's ma-
terial glory was gone. The Temple in its original golden splendor (if
we accept the description given by the Bible) lasted just forty years.
Jeroboam
Jeroboam had returned from exile as soon as word of Solomon's
death reached him. It was he who led the Israelite party that demanded
concessions of Rehoboam; it was he who led the rebellion that fol-
lowed Rehoboam's refusal; and it was he who was made the first king
of the re-established kingdom of Israel:
1 Kings 12:20. . . . when . . . Israel heard that Jeroboam was
come again . . . they . . . made him king over all Israel . . .
Israel thus regained its independence, which it had lost after the
death of Ish-bosheth. Jeroboam established his capital at Shechem at
first, then at the more centrally located Tirzah, twelve miles to the north-
east.
Having regained political independence for Israel, Jeroboam felt it
necessary to regain religious independence as well for he reasoned:
1 Kings 12:27. If this People go up to do sacrifice in the house of
the Lord at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again
. . . unto Rehoboam.
Jeroboam therefore set up sanctuaries at the northern and southern
limits of his new kingdom, at Dan and Bethel, and there all Israelites
were to sacrifice. The schism was complete.
Undoubtedly, this action of Jeroboam's was popular with the Isra-
elites, who might well have looked upon the Temple at Jerusalem as
a radical (and therefore irreligious) innovation, built on foreign soil by
a foreign dynasty through forced labor.
Nevertheless, the new policy did not suit the prophetic party. Proba-
bly they would have preferred a closer adherence to ancient tradition, a
reactivation of the shrines at places like Shechem and Shiloh, and a
High Priesthood like that of Eli re-established. And this, precisely,
was what Jeroboam probably didn't want; he wanted a ritual tied in
with the new monarchy that would strengthen his dynasty. Then, too,
Jeroboam had compromised with the desires of those people less capable
340
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of worshiping an abstract deity by placing the images of bulls in his
sanctuary, symbolizing the fructifying element in nature.
Ahijah, the prophet, quickly disenchanted with the king he had
helped to the throne, inveighed against him and delivered what he
proclaimed to be God's word of doom:
1 Kings 14:9. . . . thou hast . . . made thee other gods, and mol-
ten images . . .
1 Kings 14:10. Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house
of Jeroboam . . .
Indeed, Jeroboam's dynasty was not to endure long, but the new
kingdom of Israel was to persevere under several different dynasties
for over two centuries. The kingdom of Judah, while always less prosper-
ous and powerful than its northern sister, remained under the Davidic
dynasty throughout and endured for three and a half centuries.
It is very common to speak of Israel as consisting of ten tribes, since
there were traditionally twelve tribes in Israel and only Judah and Ben-
jamin remained under Rehoboam. However, the tribal system had
faded under David and Solomon, and in any case Reuben and Simeon
had disappeared by the time of the schism. At best, then, the kingdom
of Israel consisted of eight tribes.
Rehoboam died in 917 b.c. after having reigned sixteen years. Jero-
boam died in 912 b.c, having reigned twenty-one years.
Ben-hadad
The division of the kingdom of David and Solomon made a continu-
ation of any policy of imperial conquest virtually impossible. Neither
half by itself had the strength to be a conquering nation, particularly
since the energies of each were absorbed by a smolderingly continuous
hostility between them. Each nation, furthermore, sought allies among
the neighbors and enemies of the other and each labored to enfeeble
the other by any means.
In Judah, Abijam, the son of Rehoboam, began his reign in 917
b.c, and he was succeeded by his son Asa in 915 b.c. They were the
fourth and fifth kings of the Davidic dynasty.
In Israel, Jeroboam's son Nadab began his rule in 912 b.c. A rebellion
1 KINGS 341
against him by one of his generals, Baasha, succeeded. Nadab was slain
and Baasha ascended the throne in 911 b.c. As a measure of prudence,
to prevent a counter-revolt, he did as was often customary in these cases
and had all the male members of Jeroboam's family executed. Jero-
boam's dynasty thus survived Jeroboam's death by just one year.
Both Asa of Judah and Baasha of Israel had long reigns, the former
reigning for forty years to 875 B.C. and the latter twenty-three years to
888 b.c. War between Israel and Judah continued in those years, and
Asa, getting the worst of it, sought help abroad:
1 Kings 15:18. Then Asa took . . . silver and . . . gold . . . and
sent them to Ben-hadad . . . king of Syria, that dwelt at Damascus,
saying,
1 Kings 15:19. There is a league between me and thee . . .
Ben-hadad was the third member of the dynasty founded by Rezon
(see page 334). In less than half a century, Damascus, from a small
principality precariously maintaining its independence against Solo-
mon, had grown to take over the leadership of the other Aramaean
regions so that one could speak of Ben-hadad as a "king of Syria." And
where David had crushed the Syrian towns and extorted tribute from
them, the great-great-grandson of David paid tribute to them in order
to gain their help.
Syria was now at least the equal of Israel in strength. It accepted
the alliance of Judah and attacked Israel's northern frontier, sacking
the city of Dan, for instance, and apparently destroying it permanently,
for it is not further mentioned in the Bible. Baasha was forced to
make peace and for the next century and a half, Syria, rather than
Judah, was Israel's chief enemy.
Samaria
The history of Israel continued to be troubled with dynastic prob-
lems. Baasha's son Elah succeeded in 888 b.c. and then history re-
peated itself. In a palace revolution, Zimri, a leader among Elah's body-
guard, killed Elah and all the family of Baasha. He did not, however,
survive to establish a new dynasty.
The general of Israel's armed forces, Omri, was then engaged in
342 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Samaria
besieging a Philistine city. He was acclaimed king of Israel by his
troops and marched on Tirzah. Zimri died in the fiery ruins of his
palace; another contender for the throne, Tibni, was also defeated and
killed; and by 887 b.c. Omri held the throne firmly, the first member
of Israel's third dynasty.
The capital city of Tirzah had now seen two dynasties brutally
wiped out; the first having endured only twenty-two years, the second
twenty-four years. That in itself was enough to make it an uncomforta-
ble place for the new king. He cast about for a suitable site for a new
capital, one that could be firmly identified with the new dynasty.
1 Kings 16:24. And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer . . .
and built on the hill . . . the city . . . Samaria.
The Hebrew name of the city, Shomron, is derived from Shemer,
the name of the clan, or the individual, who owned the land before
Omri's purchase. Samaria is, of course, the Greek version of the
name.
1 KINGS
343
Samaria lay about six miles northwest of Shechem, about midway be-
tween the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It was centrally lo-
cated in the kingdom and had considerable potentiality for defense
since it was located on an isolated hill. It remained the capital of Israel
through the remaining history of the kingdom (though its kings had
favorite residences elsewhere on occasion, notably at Jezreel) and
was sufficiently important to make Samaria a frequently used synonym
for the entire kingdom.
The energetic Omri reigned for only a dozen yean but in that time,
secure in his new capital, he made Israel respected among her neigh-
bors. To counter the danger of Syria, he made an alliance with the
Phoenician cities and so stabilized the kingdom that his son could reign
in peace after him— the first time that had happened in Israel's trou-
bled history since the schism.
Such was the reputation of the king that in Assyrian inscriptions,
Israel is referred to as the "land of Omri."
Jezebel
Omri was succeeded by his son Ahab in 875 b.c. with the royal power
strengthened by the Phoenician alliance. At about the time that Omri
had come to the throne, the dynasty of Hiram (see page 325) had been
wiped out by Ithobaal (the Biblical "Ethbaal"), a priest of Ashtoreth,
who then succeeded to the throne. By Ahab's time. Ithobaal's seat on
the throne was clearly secure and Ahab felt safe in committing himself
not only to an alliance but to the reinforcing cement of a dynastic
marriage.
1 Kings 16:31. . . . he [Ahab] took to wife Jezebel the daughter
of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians . . .
It was customary for kings in that time of religious inclusiveness to
allow foreign queens their own religious rites, as Solomon had done
for his own numerous wives.
Jezebel, however, was a dominating woman who wanted not merely
to pursue the worship of her own particular "baal" (Melkart, a specific
name which does not appear in the Bible) but labored to establish
its worship throughout Israel generally. This may have been more than
344
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
religious fervor; it may have been a device on her part to tie Israel more
firmly to the Phoenician cities for the benefit of both.
It apparently suited Ahab's purposes to encourage her in this, for the
prophetic party with its attempts to limit royal power and to dictate
foreign policy along supernationalist lines could, in his eyes, well stand
being weakened.
1 Kings 16:30. And he [Ahab] reared up an altar for Baal in the
house of Baal which he had built in Samaria.
Elijah
It was the good fortune of the prophetic party that it now found
itself in the hands of a strong leader, Elijah, the most dominating
prophetic figure since Samuel. In the face of persecution, Elijah and his
followers hardened their own stand and became increasingly intoler-
ant of other worship.
Because of the deadly battle that followed, which was, in the long
run, won by the Yahvists, Jezebel has become the very byword of a
wicked, idolatrous woman, whereas Elijah was remembered by later
generations with a veneration second only to Moses'.
Elijah enters the Biblical story as the forecaster of a drought that
was to take place as punishment for the policies of Jezebel.
1 Kings 17:1. And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants
of Gilead, said unto Ahab . . . there shall not be dew nor rain these
years . . .
Elijah was from Tishbi, a town in Gilead, east of the Jordan. Its site
is uncertain but it has been identified with a small village just west of
Mahanaim.
Zarephath
Elijah's bearding of Ahab made it necessary for the prophet to re-
main in hiding thereafter, first in the Jordan valley and then far north
in Phoenicia itself (the very home of the religious enemy where, per-
haps, it was least likely that the royalist forces would look for him).
1 Kings 17:10. . . . he arose and went to Zarephath . . .
1 KINGS 34;
Zarephath and Mount Carmel
Zarephath is on the Phoenician seacoast, nearly twenty miles north of
Tyre (Jezebel's home city) and eight miles south of Sidon. The mod-
ern Arabic town of Sarafand stands near the place. Among the ruins of
the ancient town there stands a church on the traditional site of the
house in which Elijah lodged during his stay there.
Back in Israel, the state of the prophetic party worsened. Only those
remained alive who escaped Jezebel's harsh hand by flight or by going
into hiding. Thus, Obadiah, a high official of Ahab's court and a secret
Yahvist, helped some to live:
1 Kings 18:4. . . . when fezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord
. . . Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them . . . and fed
them . . .
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Mount Carmel
After three years, however, Elijah took the chance of facing Ahab
once more to foretell the imminent ending of the drought and to
propose a direct contest between Yahveh and Melkart.
1 Kings 18:19. Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel
unto Mount Carmel . . .
There, Elijah proposed, eight hundred and fifty worshipers of Melkart
and other Phoenician deities were to gather and attempt to light the
fire under a sacrifice by means of their rites, while he alone and by him-
self was to try to do the same by calling on Yahveh.
Carmel is a mountainous ridge, about fifteen miles long, running
northwest-southeast, just south of the Kishon River (see page 238).
Its Hebrew name means "garden" or "vineyard" and, in ancient times
particularly, it was well wooded and attractive. The maximum height,
at about the middle of the ridge, is 1732 feet. Where it meets the sea,
it forms a promontory called Cape Carmel. At the sea, just north of the
ridge is the city of Haifa. The whole area is now part of the modern
nation of Israel and Haifa is its second largest city. In ancient times,
however, the site of Haifa carried no town of any importance.
The most important event in the history of Mount Carmel was the
competition between Elijah and the worshipers of Melkart. Partly
because of this and partly because it made for a pleasant retreat, it was
a haunt for anchorites in early Christian times. When Palestine
was temporarily in the hands of the Crusaders in the twelfth century
a.d., a monastery was built there and an order of Carmelites was
founded, an order which still flourishes.
The competition at Mount Carmel, which the Bible relates with lov-
ing detail, ended in a complete victory for Elijah. The wood caught
fire at Elijah's word, after all the hundreds of competing priests found
themselves unable to do a thing.
Ahab, witnessing the feat, was awed and impressed and allowed
Elijah to order the massacre of the Baalists at the Kishon River.
1 KINGS
347
Jezreel
For the moment, the towering figure of Elijah dominated King
Ahab, all the more so as the drought ended at this time. Together,
king and prophet left Mount Carmel:
1 Kings 18:45. . . . And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel.
1 Kings 18:46. And . . . Elijah ... ran before Ahab to the
entrance of Jezreel.
The city of Jezreel was located in the valley of Jezreel (see page
241) about twenty-five miles southeast of Carmel and an equal dis-
tance north of Samaria. It was a favorite residence of Ahab and Jezebel.
Ahab must have told Jezebel of Elijah's deed with great enthusiasm
but Jezebel was not impressed. She undoubtedly knew how the priests
of Melkart arranged miracles when they wished to impress the popu-
lace, and she must have been certain that Elijah had merely managed
to outsmart her own group in chicanery, nothing more.
We can well imagine that under her withering scorn, Ahab's new-
found enthusiasm for the prophets faded. He allowed Jezebel to take
over the reins of the religious policy once more and again Elijah was
forced into exile, traveling southward this time through Judah to
Mount Sinai, the traditional home of Yahveh.
It seemed to him that only the complete overthrow of the house
of Omri would save Yahvism and he began long-range plans in this
direction. Aware that the consummation of those plans might outlast
his own time, he selected a successor to himself, one strong enough, in
his estimation, to cany on the fight:
1 Kings 19:19. So he departed thence, and found Elisha . . .
who was plowing . . . and Elijah passed by him, and cast his
mantle upon him.
Ben hadad II
Meanwhile Ahab had his hands full with the Syrian problem.
Ben-hadad, who had defeated Israel badly in Baasha's time several
348 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
decades before had been succeeded by his son Hadad-ezer, who is
referred to in the Bible as another Ben-hadad, and who can therefore
be called Ben-hadad II. (Hadad was a storm-god, well known over
southwestern Asia and particularly popular at Damascus. He served as
the national god of the Syrians and his name was therefore com-
monly incorporated into the royal name. Ben-hadad means the "son
of Hadad.")
Ben-hadad II continued the firm, anti-Israel policy of his father:
1 Kings 20:1. And Ben-hadad the king of Syria gathered all his
host together . . . and he went up and besieged Samaria . . .
Samaria held out but was hard pressed indeed and, for a while,
was minded to surrender even under harsh terms. At this sign of
weakness, however, Ben-hadad raised the price for surrender and
Ahab was forced into continued warfare. He decided to risk every-
thing on a pitched battle and retorted to a threat of destruction sent
him by Ben-hadad with an aphorism that, in one form or another, is
famous:
1 Kings 20:11. And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell
him, Let not him tliat girdeth on his harness boast himself as he
that putteth it off.
In other words, "Don't boast at the start of a battle as you would
at the end of a victorious one." Or, in its most common form to
us: "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched."
And Ahab proved his meaning well, for the Israelites fought with the
fury of despair and the overconfident Syrian army was forced to
flee after many casualties.
Aphek
A second battle was fought the next year.
1 Kings 20:26. And it came to pass at the return of the year,
that Ben-hadad numbered the Syrians and went up to Aphek, to
fight against Israel.
This is not the Aphek that figured in the wars against the
Philistines two centuries earlier (see page 271), but is rather a town
1 KINGS
349
that is identified with the modem village of File, about three miles east
of the Sea of Galilee, and roughly midway between Samaria and
Damascus.
It was a measure of the size of the victory of the previous year that
Ahab, who had then been besieged in his capital, could now meet
the foe at the frontier.
This time the victory was again Israel's to an extent even greater
than the first. Ben-hadad was forced to surrender, relinquish his
father's conquests, and allow Israel commercial privileges in Damascus.
Israel was stronger now than at any time since the schism with Judah.
In Ahab's wars against Syria, the prophetic party was on his side.
Whatever the quarrels between prophets and monarch within the
land, they closed ranks against the foreigner. Thus, it was a prophet
who encouraged Ahab before the relief of Samaria:
1 Kings 20:13. And . . . there came a prophet unto Ahab . . .
saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou seen all this great multitude?
behold, I wzfl deliver it into thine hand this day . . .
But Ahab's relatively mild peace with the Syrians bitterly dis-
pleased the ultranationalist prophetic party and intensified their op-
position to the throne.
Yet Ahab seems to have been statesmanlike in this respect. A living
Syria, allied with Israel, and unembittered by unnecessary destruction
and harsh oppression, could be a useful friend, particularly since
a new enemy to both loomed to the north.
Assyria, of which much more will be said later, was under a strong
king, Shalmaneser III, and was spreading its domination over the
Fertile Crescent. According to Assyrian documents a battle was fought
in 854 B.C. at Karkar (or Qarqar), a city located about a hundred
miles north of Damascus, between Shalmaneser and an allied army
led by Ben-hadad and Ahab in alliance. The Assyrians claim a victory
but that is routine in the chronicles of the time. The fact is that the
Assyrians annexed no territory and were therefore held to a draw at
the least.
This stand against Assyria saved both Syria and Israel and gave
each over a century of additional life and that certainly vindicated
Ahab's policy of not fighting Syria to exhaustion so that both might
fall helplessly into the Assyrian throat.
Oddly enough, there is no mention of the battle of Karkar in the
35°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Bible. It may be that the Biblical writers were not willing to report
so clear an indication that the prophetic party was wrong and Ahab
right
Naboth
Indeed, the Bible passes directly from the Syrian victory to the
darkest deed of Ahab's reign as though to neutralize his military
prowess by reference to his moral shortcomings.
Near Ahab's palace in Jezreel, there was a vineyard owned by
a man named Naboth, which Ahab would have liked to have for his
own.
1 Kings 21:2. And Ahab spake unto Naboth saying, Give me
thy vineyard . . . and I will give thee for it a better vineyard . . .
or . . . the worth of it in money.
Naboth refused to sell his ancestral holdings, however, and Ahab
was helpless. Jezebel, however, was not. She bribed two men to swear
that Naboth had committed treason and blasphemy and Naboth, thus
framed, was executed. His vineyard, naturally, was confiscated by the
throne, as was routine for the property of traitors.
The deed was very much like that in which David had arranged
the death of Uriah and the "confiscation" of Uriah's wife. As Nathan
had then denounced David to his face, so now Elijah appeared to de-
nounce Ahab. Once more, the prophetic party placed itself on record
as favoring the liberties of the people against royal oppression.
Ramoth-gilead
Israel was strong enough now, in the last years of Ahab's reign,
to exert a clear domination over Judah, as well as over Syria. In
875 b.c, the same year in which Ahab had succeeded to the throne of
Israel, Asa of Judah had died and his son Jehoshaphat (the sixth king
of the Davidic dynasty) had succeeded. The continuing war with
Israel had brought little good to Judah, and Jehoshaphat discontinued
it and sought instead alliance and friendship with Ahab. He turned
his eyes southward for expansion, maintaining the old grip on Edom
1 KINGS 351
Ramoth-gilead
and hying to reinstate Solomon's old trade on the Red Sea, Judah's
only gateway to the wide world outside. Here he was unsuccessful
as Judah lacked the necessary experience with seagoing. An offer of
help by Ahab was refused, for Jehoshaphat, though willing to be
friends with Ahab, was not willing to give Ahab too much power in
Judah.
The war with Syria had not been brought to a completely successful
conclusion in Ahab's eyes, however, for one important piece of
Israelite territory remained in Syrian hands. Ahab proposed to Jehosha-
phat a united campaign against Syria for the recovery of the territory:
1 Kings 22:4. And he [Ahab] said unto Jehoshaphat, Wilt thou
go with me to battle to Ramoth-gilead? . . .
Ramoth-gilead is another of the Trans-Jordan cities. Its exact loca-
tion is unknown but it is usually considered to be somewhere north
of Mahanaim.
There is an indication here that Yahvism was stronger in Judah
than in Israel. Before the battle, Ahab consulted the prophets (at
352 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jehoshaphat's suggestion) but chose four hundred prophets of the
Phoenician deities. They predicted victory, but Jehoshaphat would
not accept that:
1 Kings 22:7. And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet
of the Lord besides, that we might inquire of him?
Reluctantly, Ahab produced one, who promptly predicted defeat
and was placed in prison for his pains.
The battle took place. It was long and bloody and might indeed
have gone to the Israelites, but a chance arrow struck Ahab and
wounded him seriously. Though he fought on, death came by evening
and the Israelites broke off the battle.
With the death, in 853 b.c, of Ahab, after a reign of twenty-two
years, the First Book of Kings comes to an end.
12. 2 KINGS
MOAB " BAALZEBUB * ELISHA • MESHA • NAAMAN » JEHORAM OF JUDAH *
HAZAEL • JEHU " JEHOASH * BEN-HAD AD HI • AMAZIAH » JEROBOAM II • PUL •
REZIN « SHALMANESER V " SO • HABOR » SAMARITANS • SENNACHERIB •
TIRHAKAH • ESARHADDON * BERODACH-BALADAN • MANASSEH ■ JOSIAH •
PHARAOH-NECHOH » NEBUCHADNEZZAR ' CEDAUAH * EVttrMERODACH
Moab
The death of a strong king is bound to be followed by disorders,
as subject peoples seize the chance to rebel, and as surrounding inde-
pendent nations take the opportunity to attack. Moab struck as soon
as news reached it of Ahab's death:
2 Kings 1:1. Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death
of Ahab.
The schism between Israel and Judah had made it almost impossible
for either nation to do much more than hold its own territory. Judah
maintained a precarious hold on Edom, and Israel held the Trans-
Jordan. Syria in the north of Israel was permanently independent
and when it was strong, its power tended to stretch out over the
Trans-Jordan.
Similarly, when Israel was strong, its armies pressed south from
Gilead and controlled Moab. This happened in the reign of Omri
when that capable monarch (much underrated in the Bible) took
Moab about 88o B.C. Ahab held it through his own stormy reign, but
with his death Moab rose.
Israel and Judah
2 KINGS
355
Badzebub
Ahab's son Ahaziah succeeded to the throne (the first time an
Israelite dynasty survived to be represented by a third member) and
found himself faced with the Moabite insurrection. Unfortunately, he
sustained a bad fall, lay seriously ill, and was unable to lead the army.
2 Kings 1:2. . . . and he [Ahaziah] sent messengers and said
unto them, Go, inquire of Badzebub the god of Ekron whether
I shall recover of this disease.
Baalzebub (more familiar in the New Testament version of the
spelling, Beelzebub) means "Lord of the Flies."
This sounds odd at first and there are at least two explanations
of its meaning. One is that the actual name was Baalzebul, meaning
"Lord of the House," that is, "Lord of the Temple," a natural title
for people to give their chief god. It would then seem that the
Biblical writers, unable to bring themselves to give an idol a title
which seemed to them to belong only to Yahveh, converted it to
Baalzebub by the change of a letter.
A second explanation is that Baalzebub really did mean "Lord of the
Flies" and that this was a legitimate title of the chief god of the
Philistine city of Ekron, for it meant he had the power to bring
or prevent insect plagues, which were great and fearful realities in the
ancient world. It is not unlikely that the ancients noticed the rise in
disease incidence where flies were plentiful and a "Lord of the Flies"
might be, in general, a god with special powers in the field of health
and medicine. This would explain why Ahaziah in his extremity should
seek out Baalzebub in particular even though (as he must have
known) this would enrage the prophetic party in Israel. And this it
did, for Elijah arrived at once to denounce the action.
Fot some reason, Baalzebub grew to receive particular attention
from the later Jews as the idolatrous god par excellence. Thus, when
the reports of Jesus' ability to heal men spread, some said skeptically:
Matthew 12:24. . . . This fellow doth not cast out devils, but
by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
356
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
By "prince" we mean leader or chief so that Beelzebub (the
New Testament spelling) was considered the chief devil, the being
more familiarly known to us as Satan. In Paradise Lost, John Milton
makes use of a whole hierarchy of fallen angels and therefore has
Satan and Beelzebub as separate beings, but he makes Beelzebub
second only to Satan.
To return to Ahaziah— His appeal to Baalzebub was of no help
to him. He died after reigning two years and his younger brother,
Jehoram, also referred to as Joram, fourth member of the dynasty of
Omri, ascended the throne in 852 b.c.
Elisha
Elijah, the great leader of the prophetic party, did not long survive
Ahaziah. The Bible recounts the legend that he was taken up alive
into heaven:
2 Kings 2:11. . . . there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses
of fire, . . . and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
His lieutenant, Elisha, remained behind to inherit his position and
his aims. This is indicated by a physical action that has entered into
the language as a metaphor:
2 Kings 2:13. He [Elisha] took up . . . the mantle of Elijah
that fell upon him, and went back . . .
From this point on, to his death a half century or more later,
Elisha headed the prophetic party and kept it in vigorous life.
Elijah lived on, however, in the awed memory of later generations.
His bold stand against a powerful king and queen in favor of Yahvism,
his courageous denunciation of tyranny and absolutism, was infinitely
impressive and must have led to the feeling that nothing less than a
living translation into heaven could do for so holy a man. This, in
turn, encouraged the thought that someone taken alive into heaven
might someday return alive from heaven.
In later generations when the kingdom of Israel and Judah had
both been destroyed and when the surviving Jews looked forward with
mingled hope and dread to the day when the Lord would set up a
2 KINGS 357
new order on earth, it was felt that Elijah would then play a key role.
Thus, the prophet Malachi, writing four centuries after Elijah, states
God's promise as:
Malachi 4:5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before
the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
In the New Testament, in which the view is taken that the new
order on earth has been brought by Jesus, the forecoming of Elijah is
accepted. Jesus is quoted as saying:
Matthew 17:12. But I say unto you, That Elias [Elijah] is come
already . . .
Matthew 17:13. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto
them of John the Baptist.
Mesha
Moab was still in successful rebellion at the time of Jehoram's
accession to the throne of Israel, and the fact is noted once more,
this time with the name of the Moabite ruler:
2 Kings 3:4. And Mesha king of Moab . . .
2 Kings 3:5. . . . rebelled against the king of Israel.
Israel under Jehoram was still allied with Jehoshaphat of Judah
and this fact offered the Israelite monarch a strategic opportunity.
Rather than attack Moab from the north in a straight head-to-head
clash, a combined Israelite-Judean army could move southward through
Edom (a Judean dependency) and around the southern edge of the
Dead Sea. Moab could then be attacked along her unprepared southern
frontier. The march, however, was a difficult one. The heat and lack
of water must have badly damaged soldier morale and led Jehoram to
fear either an ignominious retreat or a disastrous defeat.
Jehoshaphat at this point (as several years before with Ahab) sug-
gested that a prophet be consulted. (This is good policy since if the
prophet predicts victory, soldier morale shoots upward and this may
indeed suffice to produce victory.) This time it was Elisha that stood
before the monarchs and again it is clear that the prophetic party
358
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Mcsha's Kingdom
was closer at heart to rustic Judah than to citified Israel, for Elisha
says contemptuously to Jehoram:
2 Kings 3:14. . . . were it not that I regard the presence of
Jehoshaphat ... I would not look toward thee, nor see thee.
Elisha predicts victory and, indeed, victories of the combined kings
over the Moabites are recorded. But then, in one cryptic verse, the
whole is nullified and Moab is left free and independent.
2 Kings 3:27. Then he [Mesha of Moab] took his eldest son
. . . and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there
was great indignation against Israel: and they [the allied forces]
departed from him, and returned to their own land.
To understand this, we must remember that Moab's cultural and
religious level was much like that of Israel and Judah. In 1869, a
German missionary, F. A. Klein, discovered a memorial inscription
on a piece of black basalt, three and a half feet high and two feet
wide. It was found in the ruins of Dibon, a Moabite city about twelve
miles east of the Dead Sea and some four miles north of the Arnon
River.
2 KINCS
359
It turned out to be an inscription in ancient Hebrew (the oldest
lengthy inscription in that writing now extant) and it had been
set up by Mesha to commemorate the events of his reign. It is called
the "stone of Mesha" or the "Moabite stone."
The language used has a Biblical sound except that the Moabite
god, Chemosh, replaces the Israelite God, Yahveh. Thus, the stone
says: "Omri, King of Israel, afflicted Moab for many days, because
Chemosh was angry with his land." Also, "Chemosh said unto me,
Go, take Nebo against Israel" and "Chemosh drave him out from
before me," and so on.
To many at this time it must have seemed that there was a rough
kind of democracy among gods, each having its own territory within
which it might ordinarily be supreme, until such time as one god might
develop greater strength than another so that the human agents of one
would then be able to invade the land and defeat the human agents
of the other. This view, "henotheism," was that of the vast majority
of ancient peoples.
It is very likely that even the Yahvists were at this time henotheists,
though this is hard to tell from the Bible, for the later writers, whose
views of Yahveh were considerably more exalted, would have been
embarrassed by such evidence as they might find in the traditional
legends and chronicles and would have modified them. Verse 3:27
in 2 Kings is a case in point.
If a god is angry with his people, he may be propitiated by a
sacrifice; the more valued the object sacrificed the more certain the
propitiation. The sacrifice of a human would be better than that of
any animal and the sacrifice of the heir to the throne would be best
of all. The Biblical writers are firm in their insistence that Yahveh
was not like the gods of other nations and abhorred human sacrifice,
but Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac, and Jephthah's actual sacrifice
of his daughter are traces of a more primitive view.
Certainly Chemosh did not disapprove of human sacrifice and
Mesha, driven to despair by the victorious advance of the allied army,
sacrificed his son. This could well be a useful act in a henotheistic
society. The Moabite army, aware of the sacrifice, would be certain
that Chemosh would now be fighting on their side. Since the battle
was on Moabite territory and Chemosh was supreme in Moab, they
could fight with the assurance of victory.
The allied army, equally aware of the sacrifice, would feel Yahveh
3 6o
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to be weak on alien soil and would fight in equal expectation of
defeat. With the Moabites sure of winning and the Israelites sure of
losing there could only be one outcome.
The phrase "there was great indignation against Israel" is given in
the Revised Standard Version as "there came great wrath upon Israel,"
and it seems very likely that the indignation or wrath here spoken
of was that of Chemosh. It is possible that the earliest form of the
verse was "there came the great wrath of Chemosh upon Israel,"
and the Biblical writers, unwilling to make it appear that Chemosh
was a real god who could display effective wrath, or was anything
more than a false idol, eliminated the mention of his name.
Naaman
The early chapters of 2 Kings include a number of wonder tales
concerning Elisha, and the best developed of these involves a Syrian
general who, according to Jewish legend (but not according to any-
thing in the Bible) had been the one whose arrow had slain Ahab:
2 Kings 5:1. Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of
Syria, was . . . a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper.
A young Israelite maidservant, taken captive in the wars with
Israel, suggested that Naaman consult the wonder-working Elisha in
Israel. Naaman followed this advice and was instructed to wash him-
self seven times in the Jordan River. Despite Naaman's initial nation-
alistic indignation at the suggestion that the Jordan had greater
curative powers than the rivers of Syria, he did as he was told and
was cured.
This, naturally, convinced Naaman of the power of Yahveh:
2 Kings 5:17. And Naaman said, Shall there not . . . be given
to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will
henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods,
but unto the Lord.
Henotheistically, he required the earth, for in sacrificing to Yahveh,
he would have to stand on the soil of Israel, or it would do no good.
By bringing some Israelite soil to Damascus he would create for
himself a little island over which Yahveh would have power.
2 KINGS 361
Israel and Syria (Aram)
Naaman also recognized that he could not carry his private worship
too far or make it too exclusive, and he said to Elisha:
2 Kings 5:18. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that
when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there,
and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rim-
mon . . .
Elisha's answer was a simple:
2 Kings 5:19. ... Go in peace . . .
which was the equivalent of consent. Perhaps the earliest versions of
the story gave the consent more explicitly, for Elisha (who is not
recorded as objecting to Naaman's assumption that only on Israelite
soil could Yahveh be worshiped) might have been more of a heno-
theist himself than the later Biblical writers were willing to allow.
Rimmon, by the way, seems to be an alternate name for Hadad,
the national god of Damascus. Hadad was a storm-god and "Rimmon"
seems to mean "the Thunderer." (This was precisely the epithet often
given to the Greek storm-god, Zeus.)
362
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
As a result of verse 5:18, the expression "to bow to Rimmon" has
come to mean the act of conforming to a social custom one knows
to be wrong merely in order to avoid trouble.
Jehoram of Judah
Judah continued her policy of careful subservience to Israel. When,
in 851 B.C., Jehoshaphat of Judah died, after having reigned for
twenty-four years:
2 Kings 8:16. . . . Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat . . . began
to reign.
Jehoram (or Joram) of Judah, the seventh king of the Davidic
dynasty, happened to have the same name as that of the contemporary
king of Israel. Another link was in the form of a dynastic marriage,
for Jehoram of Judah was married to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab
and Jezebel, and was therefore brother-in-law, as well as namesake,
to Jehoram of Israel.
While Jehoshaphat had been alive, Yahvism was in the ascendant
in Judah at least, but Jehoram of Judah was, apparently, as much under
the influence of Athaliah as Ahab of Israel had been under the in-
fluence of Jezebel:
2 Kings 8:18. And he [Jehoram of Judah] walked in the way
of ... the house of Ahab: for the daughter of Ahab was his
wife.
Then, too, just as after the death of Ahab, Moab had revolted
against Israel, so now after the death of Jehoshaphat, Edom revolted
against Judah.
Jehoram died in 844 B.C. and his son Ahaziah, the eighth king of
the Davidic dynasty, came to the throne. (To add further to the
confusion of those trying to keep these names straight, Ahaziah, the
son of Jehoram of Judah, was the namesake of Ahaziah, the elder
brother of Jehoram of Israel.)
Ahaziah of Judah was a young man of twenty-two, completely
under the thumb of his mother Athaliah. Judah seemed doomed to be
absorbed by Israel.
2 KINGS 363
Hazael
That this did not happen was due, partly, to Israel's continuing
troubles with Syria.
About the time that Ahaziah became king of a shrunken and tot-
tering Judah, a palace revolution took place in Damascus. When Ben-
hadad II of Syria fell sick, one of his courtiers, Hazael, hastened the
death of the old king:
2 Kings 8:1;. . . . he [Hazael] foot: a thick cloth, and dipped
it in water, and spread it on his [Ben-hadad's] face so that he
died: and Hazael reigned in his stead.
Hazael turned out to be a vigorous ruler and under him, in fact,
Syria rose to the peak of its power.
The war over Ramoth-gilead, where Ahab had received his fatal
wound a dozen years before, was renewed now. In the course of
the war, Jehoram of Israel was wounded and forced to retire to
Jezreel, leaving the army under the command of his general, Jehu.
While Jehoram remained in Jezreel, recuperating, his ally (and
nephew) Ahaziah of Judah came to Jezreel, as an assurance, pre-
sumably, of his loyalty. Jezebel was still alive, and in Jezreel, and it
might well have been a source of pride to her to see the two kings
together; one her son and the other her grandson. Disaster, however,
was close at hand.
Jehu
Jehoram's wound gave the prophetic party its opportunity. A dis-
abled king was useless in time of war and the people might welcome
the opportunity to place a vigorous general on the throne instead.
Such a general was Jehu, who was either a Yahvist or was willing to
become one to gain the throne.
Elisha sent to assure him of the support of the prophetic party
and urged him to assume the kingship. His fellow officers were en-
thusiastically willing:
3 6 4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
2 Kings 9:13. . . . they hasted . . . and blew with trumpets, say-
ing, Jehu is Jang.
Jehu marched instantly on Jezreel with the intention of laying it
under siege and establishing his kingship by executing Jehoram.
Jehoram and Ahaziah, the two kings, came out to meet Jehu's army
and did so, according to the Biblical writer, in the very vineyard that
had once belonged to Naboth (see page 350). There Jehu killed
Jehoram and when Ahaziah attempted to escape, had him pursued
and killed likewise.
Jezebel, her son and grandson dead, retained her pride and courage
to the end.
2 Kings 9:30. And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel
heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and
looked out at a window.
That is, she put on eye make-up (the Revised Standard Version
renders the phrase "she painted her eyes and adorned her head") to
hide any signs of grief and to show herself even at this last moment
a queen. Posterity, unwilling to give the old queen credit for any
virtue, even that of courage, uses the term "painted Jezebel" to
signify not bravery in the face of disaster, but merely to signify wicked-
ness—usually sexual wickedness, of which there is no Biblical ground
for accusing Jezebel.
From the window, Jezebel taunted Jehu with being another Zimri,
who had killed a king but who had lived to rule only seven days
before giving way to Omri, the founder of the house which Jehu
was now destroying (see page 342).
Jehu did not allow himself to be disturbed by the comparison.
He had Jezebel thrown from the window and killed. Having done that,
he proceeded to take the usual dynastic precautions:
2 Kings 10:11. So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of
Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his
priests, until he left him none remaining.
The house of Omri, Israel's third dynasty, had thus lasted forty-
four years, and had seen four kings: Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, and
Jehoram. Now, in 843 B.C., the line was at an end and Jehu founded
the fourth dynasty of Israel.
2 KINGS 365
The worship of the Phoenician god, Melkart, was so intimately
entwined with the house of Omri that it was good policy for Jehu to
destroy the cult. He killed its priests and desecrated its temples and
restored Yahvism to its wonted supremacy. However, it was Yahvism
after the fashion of Jeroboam, with its bull-worshiping sanctuaries. To
the more advanced of the prophetic party, this was insufficient.
Moreover, the civil war in Israel was Hazael's opportunity. The
army in Ramoth-gilead could scarcely stand before him while Israel
itself was convulsed in political and religious revolution.
2 Kings 10:32. In those days . . . Hazael smote them in all the
coasts of Israel;
2 Kings 10:33. From Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead . . .
Israel, its Trans-Jordanian territories lost, was penned between the
Jordan and the sea.
Jehu had to find help. None could be received from Phoenicia
after Jehu's actions against the Tyrian princess Jezebel and all that
she had represented. Nor could any be expected from Judah, which
was, temporarily, in the grip of Jezebel's vengeful daughter, Athaliah.
Jehu therefore turned to the one remaining source of help-
Assyria. That powerful nation was still under the rule of Shalmaneser
III, who, nearly fifteen years before, had been withstood by the united
forces of Syria and Israel. Now the new king of Israel paid tribute
to Assyria in 841 B.C. and acknowledged Assyrian overlordship in re-
turn for Assyrian help against Syria, thus helping to hasten the day
when Syria and Israel alike would fall prey to the Assyrian power.
The fact of Jehu's tribute to Assyria is known from Assyrian in-
scriptions; it is not mentioned in the Bible. The Assyrian records call
Jehu by the then usual title used by them for the kings of Israel—
the "son of Omri." This, despite the fact that Jehu, far from being a
descendant of Omri, had just killed every such descendant he could
find. Jehu reigned for twenty-eight years, dying in 816 B.C.
Jehoash
The house of Omri still remained in Judah in the person of-
Ahaziah's mother, Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. She
Syria at Its Height
2 KINGS
seized power at the news of the slaying of her son Ahaziah by the
usurper, Jehu. To keep herself in power, she destroyed all the males
of the house of David she could find.
2 Kings 11:2. Bur Jehosheba, the daughter of king ]oram
[Jehoram of Judah], sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of
Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king's sons which were
slain; and they hid him . . . from Athaliah, so that he was not
slain.
2 Kings 11:3. And he was with her hid in the house of the
Lord six years. And Athaliah did reign over the land.
If Jehosheba was the daughter of king Jehoram and the sister of
Ahaziah, she must also have been the daughter of Athaliah, unless
she was the daughter of Jehoram by a concubine. The Bible does not
make that clear. It seems difficult to believe that Athaliah would kill
her own grandsons and it may be that the "king's sons" referred to
are the various male members of the house of David, the sons and
grandsons of Jehoram by various concubines.
The hiding of Jehoash (or Joash) might conceivably have been
intended not so much to save him from death, but to save him from
an upbringing according to Athaliah's religious views.
In 837 B.C., Jehoiada the High Priest (and husband of Jehosheba)
felt the time was right. He displayed the person of the boy-king to
the Judean generals and allowed the mystic aura of descent from
David to do its work.
The army was won over and Athaliah was killed. The cult of
Melkart which she had established in Jerusalem was wiped out, and
Jehoash reigned as the ninth king of the Davidic dynasty.
It is interesting to note, though, that Jehoash was the grandson
of Athaliah and the great-grandson of Ahab and Jezebel. Through all
future kings of Judah ran the blood not only of David but also of
Jezebel.
The reign of Jehoash had its share of disasters. Hazael of Syria,
having swept up the Trans-Jordan, circled the Dead Sea, laid siege to
and conquered the Philistine city of Gath, and was then ready to
march against Jerusalem itself. The city was saved only when Jehoash
used the treasures of the Temple as tribute to Hazael, bribing him,
in effect, to leave Jerusalem in peace.
368
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
This humiliated the army leaders, of course, and enraged the priest-
hood. In 797 b.c, Jehoash, having so narrowly escaped one palace
revolution when a baby, fell prey to another, and was assassinated by
disaffected conspirators. He had reigned thirty-nine years— forty-five,
if the period of Athaliah's usurpation is added to the toll.
Ben-hadad HI
After Jehu's death in 816 b.c, his son Jehoahaz succeeded to the
throne and continued to wage a losing fight against the formidable
Hazael of Syria. Jehoahaz, after a sixteen-year reign, died in 800 b.c.
and was succeeded by his son Jehoash. (Again the reigning monarchs
of Israel and Judah were, for a few years, namesakes.)
The Syrian tide was beginning to ebb, however. In 810 b.c, the
Syrian conqueror had died:
2 Kings 13:24. . . . Hazael king of Syria died: and Ben-hadad his
son, reigned in his stead.
This was Ben-hadad III, whose proper name, apparently, before he
adopted the royal cognomen, was Man. Israel's temporary salvation lay
not so much in its own efforts as in the fact that Syria was at this
time being pounded hard by Assyria.
Assyrian power was in a period of rapid decline after the death of
Shalmaneser III in 824 b.c. (while Jehu was still king of Israel) but
in a brief flash of effort under Adadnirari III, it managed to besiege
Damascus in 805 b.c and inflict serious punishment.
Assyria's weakness prevented her from completing the conquest of
Syria, but the hand of Ben-hadad III had been permanently en-
feebled and Israel in three campaigns under Jehoash was able to re-
cover the territories lost to Hazael.
The Israelite monarch was supported in these campaigns by the
ultranationalist prophetic party, of course. In the course of these
campaigns, Elisha died and a sorrowing Jehoash was at his bedside.
Elisha was not succeeded by anyone of similar force, and the
prophetic party in Israel declined and was not an important factor in
the final three quarters of a century of Israel's existence.
2 KINGS 369
Amaziah
The fortunes of Judah also seemed to take a temporary upturn.
In the reign of Amaziah, Edom, which had retained its independence
for fifty years since the death of Jehoshaphat, was retaken:
2 Kings 14:7. He [Amaziah] slew of Edom ... fen thousand . . .
Amaziah, heartened by this victory, attempted then to break the
subservient alliance that the kings of Judah had maintained with the
kings of Israel for eighty years. Unfortunately, he was not that strong.
He might beat Edom but in battle with Israel he lost. Jerusalem was
taken by Jehoash of Israel, part of its fortifications were destroyed,
and the Temple was sacked.
Amaziah, as a result of this military humiliation, met the same fate
as his father. In 780 B.C., after a seventeen-year reign, Amaziah was
assassinated and his son Azariah sat on the throne as the eleventh
king of the Davidic dynasty.
Jeroboam II
In 785 b.c. Jehoash of Israel died and was succeeded by his son
Jeroboam II, the fourth monarch of the line of Jehu. He reigned for
forty years till 744 b.c. and under him Israel reached the height of
prosperity and power.
Syria's desperate wounding by Assyria combined with the Assyrian
period of weakness that intensified afterward and left a power vacuum
to the north. Jeroboam II filled it:
2 Kings 14:25. He restored the coast of Israel from the entering
of Hamath unto the sea of the plain.
Hamath is a town in northern Syria and the sea of the plain is the
Dead Sea. By this verse is meant then that Israel was in control of all
of Syria, probably in the sense that the cities of Syria were forced to
pay tribute to Jeroboam. (Syrian home rule continued, however, and
there was still a ruler in Damascus who might be called the king of
Owe
Great Sea
(MeiittrrwmSa)
The Kingdom of Jeroboam II
2 KINGS 37I
Syria.) Judah, as a result of its defeat during the previous reign, was
probably also a tributary, so that for the space of a few decades at
least, the empire of David and Solomon seemed restored.
It was but a brief bit of Indian summer, however, that could
endure only until giant Assyria was on its feet again. It lasted the time
of Jeroboam II, but scarcely any more.
When Zachariah, the son of Jeroboam II, ascended the throne of
Israel in 744 b.c., he represented the fifth generation of the line of
Jehu, whose great-great-grandson he was. The dynasty had endured
an unprecedented (for Israel) hundred years— but the end was at
hand. Zachariah had been reigning only six months when he was un-
seated and murdered by a palace conspiracy, and after a month of
confusion, an army officer named Menahem forced his own acceptance
as the new king.
Pul
Menahem's hold on the throne was insecure and, as is not un-
common in such cases, he sought foreign help:
2 Kings 15:19. And Pul the king of Assyria came against the
land: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his
hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand.
Assyria had had prior contacts with Israel (see pages 349 and 365)
but until now it had been Syria that was the prime danger. Now it
was Assyria itself and so although the Biblical writers had ignored
Assyria before, they can do so no longer. In this verse, contact be-
tween Assyria and Israel is mentioned for the first time, and it
might be well here to review Assyria's history.
Assyria had been a wealthy and prosperous merchant realm in
Abraham's time and this period of its history is sometimes referred
to as the "Old Assyrian Empire." In the next few centuries, how-
ever, Assyria was hard put to it to survive under the pressures of the
great powers of the age: Egypt, the Hittites, and the Mitanni.
It was only after the destruction and anarchy that followed upon
the coming of the Peoples of the Sea that Assyria was to have its
chance again. With the Hittite and Mitanni realms virtually destroyed
372 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
and with Egypt weakened and driven out of Asia, Assyria stepped
forward.
About 1200 B.C., while the Israelites were making their way toward
Canaan, the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta (the Biblical Nimrod—
see page 53) conquered Babylonia, introducing a period sometimes
called the "Middle Assyrian Empire." The Middle Empire reached
the height of its power under Tiglath-Pileser I, who ruled from m6
to 1078 b.c, during the period of the judges in Israel.
Tiglath-Pileser I carried his conquests westward and was the first
Assyrian monarch to reach the Mediterranean, doing so in the region
north of Canaan.
The Assyrian hold at that distance was still light and after the
death of Tiglath-Pileser there was a decline. The Aramaean tribes,
advancing southward and eastward from Asia Minor, threw back the
Assyrians and put an end to their Middle Empire. It was as a result
of the gap that followed in Assyrian power that David was able to
establish his own empire over the western half of the Fertile Crescent.
The Aramaeans occupied Syria and were themselves subjected by
David, but in Solomon's time they established the kingdom of
Damascus that was to cost Israel so much in the days of Ahab and his
successors.
Once again, Assyria revived. In 883 b.c, when Omri was king of
Israel, a strong Assyrian monarch, Ashurnasirpal, came to the throne,
and founded the "Late Assyrian Empire." He reorganized the Assyrian
army and made maximum use of iron weapons and armor. These
were much cheaper than bronze weapons and made it possible for the
Assyrians to equip a mass army of infantry that could smash through
the lighter and more specialized chariot-led armies of their foes.
Ashurnasirpal also introduced a policy of extreme cruelty. The
inhabitants of captured cities were fiendishly tortured to death. This
may have resulted from the king's innate sadism or as part of a
deliberate policy for weakening the will of the enemy through terror.
If the latter was the case, it succeeded, and Ashurnasirpal re-established
the empire of Tiglath-Pileser I, which again reached the Mediter-
ranean.
His son Shalmaneser III succeeded to the throne in 859 b.c.
during the reign of Ahab, and Assyrian force, firmly established to
the north, turned southward against Syria and Israel. The battle of
Karkar in 854 b.c. (see page 349) blunted that drive for the while.
2 KINGS 373
Nevertheless, Assyria's giant strength hovered remorselessly over the
two kingdoms and both, at various times, were forced to pay tribute
to her. The case of Jehu has been mentioned (see page 365).
Shalmaneser died in 824 b.c. and once again, Assyria was governed
by incompetent rulers and the threat of her armies receded, as she
found herself fighting for her life against the growing might of the
new kingdom of Urartu to the northwest (see page 41). It was in
this interval that first Hazael of Syria and then Jeroboam II of Israel
were able to enjoy brief periods of illusory power.
In 745 b.c, just before the death of Jeroboam II, an Assyrian
general deposed the feeble Assyrian monarch of the moment and
placed himself on the throne as the first of a new dynasty of Assyrian
kings. For a final period of a century and a half Assyria grew great
again— greater than it had ever been before.
The new king is the Biblical "Pul," and this may be a form of
his real name, "Pulu," by which he is listed in the Babylonian annals.
A usurper needs to pile about himself all the emotional values he
can manage and so Pul adopted the glorious name (to Assyrians)
of Tiglath-Pileser and became the third to be so called.
It was Pul, or Tiglath-Pileser III, who checked the career of the
kingdom of Urartu, defeating it in 743 b.c. And it was to Tiglath-
Pileser III that Menahem paid tribute.
Rezin
Worse was to follow. In 738 b.c, Menahem's son Pekahiah, the
second king of Israel's fifth dynasty, succeeded to the throne and
carried on his father's pro-Assyrian policy (actually the only safe
and logical one for the times). This did not suit the more rabid war
hawks, however, and the general in chief, Pekah, initiated a con-
spiracy and killed him, becoming king in 737 b.c. The fifth dynasty
had lasted only seven years.
Pekah then set about forming an anti-Assyrian alliance like that
which had been at least reasonably successful a little over a century
before at Karkar. He allied himself with Rezin of Damascus for
that purpose and they endeavored to bring in Judah as a third member.
Judah had just come through a comparatively prosperous period
in her history. In 780 b.c, Azariah, the eleventh king of the Davidic
374
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
line, had succeeded his father Amaziah. In a forty-year reign he led
a Judah which remained quietly in the shadow of Jeroboam II, and
experienced a reasonable peace and prosperity.
In later life, Azariah developed leprosy and his son Jotham became
regent about 750 B.C., succeeding to the throne as twelfth king of the
Davidic line in 740 B.C.
Jotham was not ready to join the anti-Assyrian alliance, suspecting,
and quite rightly, that the alliance would not succeed and would
merely hasten the day it was intended to stave off. The kings of
Syria and Israel attempted to change Jotham's mind by force.
2 Kings 15:37. In those days the Lord began to send against
Judah, Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah [of Israel] . . .
Judah resisted and the war was still continuing when Jotham died
and was succeeded by his son Ahaz, thirteenth king of the Davidic
line, in 736 B.C.
The Syrian forces occupied Edom and besieged Jerusalem. In this
connection, the King James Version first makes use of the word "Jew"
as an alternate form of "Judean" or "man of Judah."
2 Kings 16:6. . . . Rezin . . . recovered Elath . . . and drove the
Jews from Elath . . .
although the Revised Standard Version translates the phrase "and
drove the men of Judah from Elath."
Ahaz, seeing the inevitable defeat before him, took the truly des-
perate expedient of sending tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III as a token of
submission, and appealing to him for help.
The Assyrian monarch responded at once and with a strong hand:
2 Kings 15:29. In the days of Pekah . . . came Tiglath-Pileser
. . . and took . . . GUead, and . . . all the land of Naphtali.
Nor was Syria to be neglected:
2 Kings 16:9. ... the king of Assyria went up against Damascus
and took it . . . and slew Rezin.
In 732 B.C. the Syrian kingdom came to an end after an existence
of two and a half centuries. Damascus has remained an important and
flourishing city ever since but it came under foreign rule in 732 b.c.
2 KINGS
375
and remained under foreign role in unbroken fashion for over twenty-
six hundred years. Not until aj>. 1941 did Damascus again become
the capital of a native Syrian nation (although it has in times past
become the capital of a large empire under a foreign dynasty).
Thus only thirteen years after the death of Jeroboam II, Israel
was virtually confined to the district surrounding Samaria.
Shalmaneser V
With Syria crushed and Israel chastened, all attempts at resistance
in the western end of the Fertile Crescent came, at least temporarily,
to an end. Tiglath-Pileser III could tum to the eastern end and
crush a rebellion in Babylonia. (Babylonia was in a state of perennial
revolt against Assyria but all the revolts were crushed— except the
last one.)
Meanwhile, another palace revolution— the last one— had upset the
throne of Israel. Pekah, whose reign had been unsuccessful and who
had led his kingdom into disaster against the Assyrians, was assassinated
as a result of a conspiracy led by a man named Hoshea. Hoshea be-
came king in 732 b.c. According to the Assyrian records, Hoshea was
appointed by Tiglath-Pileser III or, at least, did not become king until
he had received Assyrian approval.
While Tiglath-Pileser lived, Hoshea remained submissive to Assyria.
When Tiglath-Pileser died, in 726 b.c, there was an instant stirring.
As stated earlier, the death of a strong king calls forth prompt rebel-
lions on the chance that his successor will be a weakling and that
the confusion of an interregnum will last long enough to make the
rebellion successful.
Tiglath's son and successor, ShalmaneseT V, took quick action,
however. Hoshea was one of those who placed himself in rebellion
on the death of the old king and Shalmaneser turned on him.
2 Kings 17:3. Against him [Hoshea] came up Shalmaneser king
of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents.
In other words, Hoshea acknowledged Assyrian domination and
Israel became a tributary kingdom. Even so, Hoshea would not have
gotten off so lightly, in all probability, if Shalmaneser had not had
pressing problems elsewhere.
376
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
So
At the first opportunity after the departure of Shalmaneser's army,
Hoshea judged that various complications would keep the Assyrian
busy indefinitely, and rebelled again. He sought further assurance by
sending for help from abroad:
2 Kings 17:4. ... he . . . sent messengers to So king of Egypt,
and brought no present to the king of Assyria . . .
Again Egypt makes a shadowy appearance in the Bible. The
Libyan dynasty of Sheshonk (the Biblical Shishak) was petering out
into the usual final whimper at about this time. In the delta, a pair of
native kings (the 24th dynasty) ruled briefly, and a line of kings from
Ethiopia in the south also seized power, forming the 25th dynasty.
This is the first impingement of Ethiopia upon Israel, if one
eliminates the highly dubious case of the queen of Sheba (see page
331).
The main core of ancient Ethiopia was located northwest of the
modern kingdom of that name. It was to be found just south of Egypt
in the territory now occupied by the Sudan. Under the conquering
Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, Ethiopia was conquered by Egypt
and remained a subject province for four centuries.
About 1100 b.c, toward the end of Egypt's 20th dynasty and well
after the death of her last powerful Pharaoh, Rameses III, Ethiopia
gained her independence and formed an increasingly powerful state
centered about the city of Napata. This was located on the upper
Nile, near the fourth cataract, quite close to the modern city of
Merowe in northern Sudan.
This kingdom, consistently called Ethiopia in the English version
of the Bible (and Cush in the Hebrew original) is sometimes called
Nubia to distinguish it from the modern Ethiopia.
By 736 b.c. Ethiopia was beginning to turn the tables on Egypt
and while Assyria was destroying Syria and Israel, the Ethiopians took
over parts of the Nile delta.
It was to the aggressors on the south that Hoshea turned for
salvation from the aggressors of the north. So, king of Egypt, is re-
ferred to as Shab'i in the Assyrian records and it is just possible he
may represent Shabaka of the 25th dynasty.
2 KINGS
377
Egypt's motivation is clear. She could not help but view the con-
tinuing growth of Assyrian strength with alarm and she did everything
she could to encourage rebellions among the Assyrian vassal states.
Unfortunately, she had virtually no power of her own, and although
she could subsidize and bribe, she could not support. Those nations
which listened to Egyptian blandishments and accepted Egyptian
gold invariably found that at the crucial moment, when they faced the
Assyrian army, Egyptian help was nowhere to be found or was, at best,
inadequate.
In the end it was disaster for everybody— including Egypt.
Habor
Shalmaneser reacted vigorously again at the news of the renewed
rebellion. He marched against Israel, laid it waste, captured and
deposed Hoshea, and then, in 725 b.c, laid siege to Samaria.
With the courage of despair, Samaria, isolated and hopeless, man-
aged to continue its resistance for three years. Perhaps this resistance
exasperated the Assyrians generally and Shalmaneser was made the
scapegoat. In any case, Shalmaneser died in 722 b.c, possibly through
assassination, since a usurper (possibly the conspirator who arranged
the assassination) came to the throne and served as the first monarch
of Assyria's last and most spectacular dynasty.
The usurper again chose a glorious name intended to shed a glow
of honored tradition about himself. He went far, far back to the
days of Sargon of Agade (see page 50) seventeen centuries before, for
the purpose. Since there was an earlier Sargon in the list of Assyrian
kings, this new one is known as Sargon II.
It was Sargon II who completed Shalmaneser's work and brought
the siege of Samaria to a quick and successful conclusion, even though
the Bible does not take note of the change in monarch but refers
to him only as "the king of Assyria."
2 Kings 17:6. In the ninth year of Hoshea, the Jang of Assyria
[Sargon] took Samaria and carried Israel away into Assyria, and
placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and
in the cities of the Medes.
37 8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Habor (Khabur), the River of Gozan
Thus, in 722 B.C., there came to a permanent end the kingdom
of Israel, which had existed for a little over two hundred years since
the successful rebellion led by Jeroboam. To those interested in
coincidences, it might be noted that Israel entered Canaan four and
a half centuries before under a Hoshea (Joshua) and now left under
another Hoshea.
Sargon adopted a procedure introduced by Tiglath-Pileser III. In-
stead of pacifying a territory by wholesale murder and destruction,
which made it less profitable thereafter to its Assyrian masters, the
same end was attained by deporting the leading citizens of a nation
to another portion of the empire, while new colonists were brought in.
In this way, the ties and tradition that bound peoples to the land
were broken— an important matter to a henotheistic people who
felt themselves deserted by their god— and the will to resist and rebel
atrophied.
2 KINGS
379
In this case, some twenty-seven thousand Israelites were deported.
This obviously did not represent the entire population of Israel but it
probably included virtually all the ruling classes: the landowners and
leaders.
They were never heard of again, and they have long been known
to tradition as the 'Ten Lost Tribes" of Israel.
Later generations found it difficult to believe that the tribes to
whom God had made so many promises could really be wiped out even
though the Bible ascribes the destruction of those tribes to the fact
that they had abandoned Yahvism and worshiped idols.
Many people believed legends to the effect that the Ten Tribes
still existed in some remote fastness of Asia or Africa, that they had
established a powerful kingdom, and that they would someday emerge,
glowing with true religion, to rescue the downtrodden Jews (or
Christians, depending on who was devising the legends) from their
oppressors.
The Jewish historian Josephus, writing eight centuries after the
destruction of Israel, reported that the Ten Tribes still existed beyond
the Euphrates and were a powerful nation. After that the stories gTew
wilder and wilder. The Ten Tribes were supposed to form a power-
ful kingdom in Ethiopia, or in Mongolia, or even in America.
Some even believed that existing modem nations might be the
descendants of the Ten Tribes. In the nineteenth century, the notion
grew in some circles that the Ten Tribes somehow became the Scythians,
living north of the Black Sea in Greek times, that these became the
Saxons ("Isaac's sons"), and, since these invaded Britain, that the
English people are therefore the descendants of the Ten Tribes.
Surely it is hard to imagine anything more silly than these beliefs
of the soolled "British-Israelite" cult.
What really happened to the Ten Tribes? The apparent truth is
completely unromantic. The Second Book of Kings says, in a slightly
garbled verse, that they were deported to "Halah and in Habor by
the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes."
Habor is almost certainly the river now known as Khabur, which
is a tributary of the Euphrates, flowing into it from the north. The
Khabur River rises in southeastern Turkey and flows generally south-
ward for about two hundred miles through what is now northeastern
Syria. It enters the Euphrates about thirty miles south of the Syrian
provincial town of Deir ez Zor. Gozan and Halah are cities on the
380
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Khabur. They are referred to as the "cities of the Medes" not because
they were in Median territory at the time, but because they had
come under Median domination a century and a half later when
the material in the Second Book of Kings reached its final form.
What it amounts to, then, is that the Israelites were moved about
450 miles northeastward to the top of the Fertile Crescent. They
were indeed only about sixty miles east of the city of Haran where
Abraham had sojourned on his way to Canaan (see page 59).
And what happened to the Ten Tribes on the Khabur River?
Nothing very startling. They undoubtedly intermarried with the
people of the region, adopted the gods and customs of the region,
and "vanished" by assimilation.
This is what usually happens to tribes who come to be isolated
from "home base." What happened to the Vandals who had once
invaded and conquered North Africa? To the Alans, who had once
conquered Hungary? To the Khazars, who once controlled the
Ukraine?
To be sure, two centuries later, the inhabitants of Judah were de-
ported and did not assimilate themselves into the new surroundings.
Because the Jews survived (and there were reasons for it), one
wonders why the Israelites did not. That, however, is the reverse of
the real problem. One should accept the fact that the Israelites did
not survive, and wonder why the Jews didl
Samaritans
To eke out the depleted population of Israel, Sargon brought in
colonists from other parts of the Assyrian Empire.
2 Kings 17:24. And the king of Assyria brought men from Baby-
lon . . . and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the
children of Israel . . .
It is these colonists and their descendants that in later books of the
Bible are referred to as "Samaritans."
At first the immigrants tried to maintain their own religious tradi-
tions, but henotheistic feelings were strong and when natural disaster
struck the blame was placed on the fact that:
Samaria and Surrounding Lands
382
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
2 Kings 17:26. . . . they know not the manner of the God of the
land.
One of the deported priests was therefore returned.
2 Kings 17:28. . . . one of the priests . . . dwelt in Bethel, and
taught them how they should fear the Lord.
This did not, however, bring about friendly relations with the
people of Judah. The Yahvism they were taught was admixed with
what seemed to the Judeans to be all sorts of error.
2 Kings 17:33. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods,
after the manner of the nations [from which they came] . . .
2 Kings 17:34. Unto this day they do after their former man-
ners . . .
The Samaritan religion became, in effect, a kind of Yahvistic
heresy, and the orthodox of Judah would by no means accept that and
seemed more hostile at times to the heretics than to the outright
pagan. (This kind of attitude also existed among Christians of later
centuries, so it is not as puzzling as it might be.) Much of later
Biblical history involves a running and irreconcilable feud between
the Judeans and the Samaritans, an odd shadow of the original feud
with a similar territorial basis between David and Saul and between
Rehoboam and Jeroboam.
Sennacherib
Only Judah was left now. In 720 B.C., two years after the end of
Israel, Ahaz died, and his son Hezekiah (the fourteenth king of the
Davidic dynasty) came to the throne.
Under him for some years there was a period of peace and even of
relative prosperity as he was careful to do nothing to offend Assyria.
Under him also, the prophetic party achieved full domination. Isaiah,
an important and influential spokesman of Yahvism, flourished in his
reign, and no doubt the Judeans were impressed by the continual in-
sistence on the part of the Yahvists that the reason Israel had come to
a bad end was its addiction to idol worship.
Sargon meanwhile continued his victorious career, defeating Urartu
3 8 4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to the north so badly that it entered a period of decline and played
no significant part in history thereafter. He also managed to keep the
turbulent Chaldean tribes, which now controlled Babylonia, under con-
trol, though they were a continual source of trouble for him.
However, in 705 b.c. Sargon died, and this was the signal for con-
spiracies and rebellions against Assyria. Hezekiah, encouraged by the
nationalist prophetic party, was among those who stopped payment of
tribute.
Sargon's son, however, had succeeded to the throne and was not to
be trifled with. He had to tend to serious rebellions in Babylonia but
eventually, in 701 b.c, he turned his attention to Judah:
2 Kings 18:13. Now ... did Sennacherib king of Assyria come
up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.
Sennacherib is the Biblical version of the name of Sargon's son,
which might, more accurately, be given as Sinakhe-erba.
Hezekiah at once gave in and offered tribute but Sennacherib was
not to be so mollified. His army advanced and laid siege to Jerusalem.
Tirhakah
It would seem that if the Assyrian army had been allowed to con-
centrate its full efforts upon Jerusalem, the city must have fallen.
However, that was not to be. Assyria's cruelties in establishing its em-
pire brought its own nemesis in its wake for its subjects revolted at
every possible chance and the last century of Assyria's existence was
one long battle against rebellion with her monarchs scarcely able to
draw a free breath between.
The Bible, unfortunately, is not entirely clear as to exactly what
happened in this particular case, since attention is concentrated on the
propaganda exchanges between the besiegers and besieged, rather than
upon military events beyond Jerusalem. However, one can deduce that
Sennacherib had to detach forces to take care of trouble farther west.
2 Kings 19:9. . . . he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia,
Behold he is come out to fight against thee . . .
By the king of Ethiopia is meant one of the Ethiopian rulers of the
Nile delta. The one in question may be Taharqa.
2 KINGS 385
Tirhakah, or Taharqa, was badly defeated, but even the defeat dis-
tracted the Assyrians and helped Jerusalem, and in the end Sennacherib
was forced to leave Judah without taking the capital.
The reasons for this are varied. The Bible attributes it to a plague
which suddenly struck and killed 185,000 Assyrians in the army in
one night.
The Greek historian Herodotus doesn't mention the siege of Jeru-
salem, but he does speak of Sennacherib's campaign against Egypt
and he describes a sudden retreat of the Assyrians, too, explaining that
it took place because a plague of mice had gnawed their arrows and
quivers and the leatherwork of their shields.
As for the records of Sennacherib, they speak only of victories, of
a besieged Jerusalem, of tribute sent him by Hezekiah.
The indisputable fact, however, is that while Jerusalem was be-
sieged as Samaria had been besieged a quarter century earlier, Jerusa-
lem survived, where Samaria did not. Judah retained its national
identity where Israel had not.
On the other hand, the fact is just as indisputable that Judah sus-
tained severe damage, that its land had been laid waste, that its
capital had barely escaped destruction, and that the end was merely
that Judah was still a tributary of Assyria.
Undoubtedly, although the Bible treats the episode as a great vic-
tory redounding to the credit of Isaiah and the prophetic party, the
prophetic party lost much prestige. It was a victory that was hard to
distinguish from a disaster.
Esarhaddon
Sennacherib came to a bad end, for he was assassinated while
supervising at religious rites in 681 B.C. Two of his own sons were the
assassins, but a third son defeated the parricides and drove them into
exile, assuming the throne himself:
2 Kings 19:37. . • . And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.
The Bible tells us nothing more of Esarhaddon (Assur-ah-iddin),
but he was the third capable member of the line of Sargon II.
Esarhaddon recognized the fact that Assyria would never have rest
until the rebellions that cropped up constantly here and there in the
2 KINGS 387
realm ceased. He did not see that it was Assyrian policy itself that
was responsible, but placed the blame on Egyptian gold.
He therefore decided to strike the poison at the source. He marched
an army into the Nile delta, defeated the Egyptians in 671 b.c, and
took over control of Egypt. For the space of a generation, the northern
half of the kingdom was more or less under Assyrian control, though
it remained restless and the native leaders still waited their chance in
the south.
Berodach-baladan
There is no question but that one of the reasons for the survival of
Judah lay in the fact that the Assyrian kings had always to concentrate
on, first and foremost, Babylonia.
For three centuries, Babylonia had been more or less under the
domination of Assyria. Conscious of a past history of over two thou-
sand years and of great empires of their own, the Babylonians never
entirely submitted but rose time and again.
In the last few decades, the rough Chaldean tribes that had emerged
from the Arabian deserts south of Babylonia had been encroaching on
Babylonia and by Sargon's time, they were in control of Babylon itself.
Sargon and Sennacherib were forced into chronic warfare with the
Chaldean leader Marduk-apal-iddin, a name which, in the Bible,
is distorted into Merodach-baladan and, in the Second Book of Kings,
through a misprint which has been piously retained across the centuries,
into Berodach-baladan.
The Chaldean sought for allies everywhere among the enemies out-
side the Assyrian Empire and the rebels within the empire. Among the
latter was Hezekiah.
2 Kings 20:12. Af that time Berodach-bahdan . . . king of Baby-
lon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah.
It is not certain when this embassy took place. It may have occurred
in the early days of Sennacherib's reign and may have been a direct
cause of the campaign of that monarch against Jerusalem. Perhaps, too,
it was action by Merodach-baladan that forced Sennacherib to lift the
siege of Jerusalem.
Merodach-baladan was eventually defeated by Sennacherib, but while
388
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
he occupied Assyrian energies, so much the less remained to be ex-
pended on Judah.
The prophetic party disapproved of dealings of this sort, for they were
isolationists as well as nationalists. To the monarchs of the time, the
combination of isolationism and nationalism seemed suicide. One
either submitted to the ruling empire, or one sought and found allies
before rebelling.
Manasseh
Hezekiah died in 693 b.c, and his twelve-year-old son Manasseh,
the fifteenth king of the Davidic line, ascended the throne and ruled
for fifty-five years.
Now the disastrous rebellion against Sennacherib came back to
plague the prophetic party. Assyria continued strong and was simply
not to be withstood. Undoubtedly, the prophets continued to preach
singlehanded rebellion and trust in God, but Manasseh and his ad-
visers would not have any of that
The prophetic party was therefore suppressed with violence:
2 Kings 21:16. Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very
much . . .
and tradition has it that Isaiah himself found a martyr's death in the
course of this reign.
And yet, Manasseh's reward was that he secured for Judah peace and
prosperity during a long fifty-five-year reign— the longest in Biblical
annals. It might seem on the face of it that Manasseh and Judah were
being rewarded by a pleased Deity but when the Yahvists gained con-
trol later on, Manasseh's memory was vilified. If he had statesmanlike
motives for his actions, they were suppressed and forgotten.
Manasseh's system continued in the short reign of his son Amon,
who ruled from 639 to 638 b.c. as the sixteenth king of the Davidic line.
Josiah
In 638 b.c, Amon's son Josiah, the seventeenth king of the Davidic
line, ascended the throne as an eight-year-old boy, and now there
came a mighty change.
2 KINGS 389
For one thing, Assyria was suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, falling
upon evil days. She was suppressing rebellions with clearly greater
effort. The hopes of all the subject nations, including Judah, were ris-
ing. The vision of freedom was before their eyes and nationalist move-
ments were gaining strength everywhere. In Judah, that nationalist
movement was embodied in the prophetic party.
As the young Josiah matured, he proved to be susceptible to the
regenerating nationalism and was sympathetic to Yahvism. The last
strong king died in 625 B.C. when Josiah was twenty-one and the
Assyrian Empire began to fall apart almost at once. By 620 b.c, things
had matured to the point where the priesthood could safely suggest the
appropriation of funds for the repair of the Temple. The Temple
had, naturally, undergone considerable deterioration during the long
period under which the anti-Yahvist kings Manasseh and Amon had
been on the throne.
In the course of these repairs, a discovery was made:
2 Kings 22:8. And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the
scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.
The "book of the law" is usually identified by Biblical scholars as
part of the Book of Deuteronomy. This may actually have been reduced
to writing in 650 b.c. during the long and, for the Yahvists, horrible
reign of Manasseh. The Yahvist tradition may well have seemed in dan-
ger of perishing and the secret commitment of that tradition to writing
may have seemed the only way out. The book would then have been
hidden in the Temple and been brought forth only when a new king,
sympathetic to Yahvism, was on the throne.
Josiah, greatly impressed by the words of Deuteronomy, led Judah
into a complete and thoroughgoing revival. Every scrap of idolatry was
removed from the land. For instance:
2 Kings 23:10. And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of
the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
Manasseh had, according to the Bible, himself sacrificed his son to
Molech (see page 163) and Topheth was the name given to the fur-
naces at which this was done.
The furnace used for the rites in Judah was located in the "valley of
the children of Hinnom." The phrase "of Hinnom" is "Ge-Hin-
39°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
nom" in Hebrew. This valley curves past the southern end of Jerusalem
and joins the valley of Kidron.
Such was the horror felt by the later Jews at the sort of religious
rites that went on at the Topheth in Ge-Hinnom, and such the strong
association with a kind of destructive fire, that both words (Tophet
and Gehenna in English) became synonymous with Hell.
Josiah's reformation was complete and was climaxed by a celebration
of the Passover:
2 Kings 23:22. Surely there was not holden such a passover from
the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the
kings of Israel, nor of the fe'ngs of Judah.
This was the final victory of Yahvism among the Judeans. Succeeding
kings might backslide but the people did not. Military disaster seemed
but to strengthen their beliefs. From this point on, then, Yahvism,
which had earlier been merely one of the sects competing for a hold on
the people of Israel and Judah, begins its transition to Judaism, the re-
ligion of the Jewish people.
Pharaoh-nechoh
But Josiah's fate was bound up with the great events taking place
in the world beyond the narrow confines of Judah.
Esarhaddon's conquest of Egypt did not end rebellions in Assyria.
Rather, it meant that Assyria had a new area of rebellion to worry
about, for Egypt was itself seething with continual unrest. Indeed,
when Esarhaddon died in 668 b.c, it was while he was marching
toward Egypt to put down a rebellion.
He was succeeded by his son Asshurbanipal, the fourth king of the
line of Sargon II and the last great king of Assyria, but one who is not
mentioned in the Bible at all. Asshurbanipal was not a great conquering
king, though he managed to put down rebellions and defend the em-
pire against barbarian incursions. He is best known as a patron of cul-
ture and he collected the greatest library the world had yet seen.
Ever since the reign of Sargon II, the Cimmerians, barbarians from
the north of the Black Sea (see page 46), had been pouring south-
ward into Asia Minor and into Assyrian territory. Assyria had been able
to defeat them only with great effort and at great cost. Asshurbanipal
2 KINGS 391
Necho's Expedition
had to lead two expeditions into rebellious Egypt and fight two bitter
campaigns against the Chaldeans in Babylonia. He had also to fight
against the barbarian Medes to the east of Babylonia.
By main force, Assyria was held together, but more and more its
strength was a matter of outer show only. The Assyrian Empire was like
a hollow structure with the walls growing thinner and thinner. It
looked well but one good, hard knock—
The subject nations sensed this and waited eagerly and, as mentioned
earlier, nationalist movements grew stronger.
Asshurbanipal died in 625 B.C., five years before Josiah's reforma-
tion, and that was the signal for the final rebellion. The Chaldeans of
Babylonia joined forces with the Medes and together they attacked the
Assyrian homeland. The Assyrian army, finally stretched beyond endur-
ance, broke. Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, was taken in 612 B.C. and
the Assyrian Empire came to an end and the conquerors divided the
spoil among themselves.
For a few years, however, a remnant of the Assyrian Empire, centered
39*
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
about Haran (see page 59), held out under a general named Ashur-
uballit
Meanwhile, important events were transpiring in Egypt, too. The re-
bellion that had been in progress there at the time of Esarhaddon's
death was never properly repressed by Asshurbanipal, who found
himself intensely busy elsewhere. Egypt could not be quieted.
Psamtik, an Egyptian general who ruled the delta as a viceroy for
the Assyrians, took over in his own name and by 652 b.c. he controlled
the country. He became Psamtik I, first Pharaoh of the 26th dynasty,
and established his capital at Sals, a city on a western branch of the
Nile, near the Mediterranean, about 175 miles northwest of Memphis.
For this reason, the period during which the 26th dynasty ruled is
known as the Saitic period.
In 610 B.C., two years after the destruction of Nineveh, Psamtik I
died and was succeeded by his son Necho, known in the Bible as
Pharaoh-nechoh.
2 Kings 23:29. In his [Josiah's] days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt
went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and
king Josiah went against him; and he [Pharaoh-nechoh] slew him
[Josiah] at Megiddo, . . .
The king of Assyria here referred to can only have been Ashur-uballit
at Haran. Necho wanted his share of the Assyrian spoils, and to keep
Chaldea from becoming too powerful, while Josiah was anxious to keep
Necho out of Asia in order that he himself might control Syria as in the
time of Solomon.
The armies met at Megiddo in Samaritan territory about fifty-five
miles north of Jerusalem in 608 b.c. It was a spot where, over six cen-
turies before, Thutmose III had fought a gigantic battle against the
Canaanites (see page 122). Almost as though the days of the Egyptian
Empire had returned, Necho won a victory, Josiah was killed, and
Egyptian power was established in the southwest comer of Asia.
Josiah had reigned for thirty years and now he was succeeded by his
son Jehoahaz, the eighteenth king of the Davidic line, but the choice
did not please Necho. He carried off Jehoahaz to life imprisonment
in Egypt and established Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah (and the
nineteenth king of the Davidic line) in his place.
For a while Jehoiakim remained an Egyptian puppet, faithfully
paying tribute to Necho. To do that, he had to recede from the Yahvist
2 KINGS
393
position of his father. He could not listen to the nationalist prophetic
party which had brought death to Josiah when he fought Egypt without
allies, in the approved prophetic fashion.
2 Kings 23:37. And he [Jehoiakim] did that which was evil in
the sight of the Lord . . .
Nebuchadnezzar
Necho's adventure in imperialism did not last long.
The Chaldean leader who had mounted the successful campaign
against the Assyrian Empire and who had taken the Assyrian capital at
Nineveh was Nabopolassar, who, under Asshurbanipal, had served as
viceroy of Babylonia.
Having accomplished that task of taking Nineveh, and spending
some years in consolidating his victory, he then sent his forces westward
against Necho, placing those forces under his son. The son's name was
Nabu-kudurri-usur ("Nebo defend the boundary"), which comes out
in the Bible as Nebuchadnezzar. The father died in 605 b.c. before the
campaign was finished and the son ascended the throne as Nebuchad-
nezzar II (Nebuchadnezzar I had reigned five hundred years earlier
over Babylonia).
The empire of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar is variously known
as the "New Babylonian Empire," the "Neo-Babylonian Empire," and
the "Chaldean Empire."
In the first year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar met Necho at Carche-
mish. Carchemish had once been an important city of the Mitanni and,
later, of the Hittites. It had been captured by Thutmose III for the
Egyptian Empire, and by Sargon II for the Assyrian Empire. It was
located on the upper Euphrates River on what is now the boundary
between Syria and Turkey, about sixty miles west of Haran and nearly
five hundred miles north of Jerusalem.
Nebuchadnezzar was completely victorious at Carchemish and
Necho, his dreams of Asian glory forever gone, scuttled back to Egypt
and remained there till his death in 593 b.c.
Meanwhile Nebuchadnezzar cleaned up the last pockets of Assyrian
resistance at Haran by 601 b.c. He could then turn his attention in
600 b.c. to minor problems such as Judah.
2 KINGS
395
2 Kings 24:1. . . . Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and
Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and re-
belled against him.
Judah switched from being an Egyptian tributary to being a Babylo-
nian one. Its rebellion in 597 b.c. was, of course, worse than useless.
Jehoiakim died at its beginning after an eleven-year reign and his son
Jehoiachin ascended the throne as the twentieth king of the Davidic
line.
Jehoiachin only reigned for three months, for Nebuchadnezzar laid
siege to the rebellious Jerusalem in 597 b.c, taking the city, stripping it
of whatever he could find, and carrying off the king and the principal
men to the number of ten thousand.
Jerusalem and Judah remained in being, however, and Nebuchad-
nezzar appointed Jehoiachin's uncle (the brother of Jehoiakim and the
third son of Josiah to sit on the throne) to the throne. The new king,
taking the name of Zedekiah, was the twenty-first king of the Davidic
line— and the last.
He began as a docile puppet of the Chaldean monarch, but as once
Hoshea had been lured into fatal revolt by promised help from So of
Egypt that never materialized, so now Zedekiah was lured into a revolt
just as fatal by an Egyptian promise just as false.
In 587 b.c. Zedekiah rose and the Babylonian army returned to the
siege. After a year and a half, the city was taken. Zedekiah and a
remnant of the army tried to flee but were smashed near Jericho.
Zedekiah was imprisoned and blinded, his sons were executed, and
further deportations depopulated the land. The kingdom of Judah came
to an end 427 years after the accession of David to the throne, and the
Temple itself was destroyed.
Gedaliah
There remained Judeans in Judah, of course, even after the deporta-
tions, and Nebuchadnezzar appointed a governor to rule them.
2 Kings 25:22. . . . Nebuchadnezzar . . . over them . . . made
Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, ruler.
Gedaliah was the grandson of the scribe who, in the reign of Josiah,
had received the news of the discovery of the Book of Deuteronomy
396
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
and who had earned that news to Josiah. Now, thirty-four years after
that discovery and the great Passover that had climaxed it, Judah was
half empty and the scribe's grandson ruled over the remnant.
Gedaliah tried to build anew but the people, fearing further punish-
ment from Nebuchadnezzar, assassinated him and many fled to Egypt
Judah was more desolate than ever.
EvU-merodach
The Jews in Babylonia might well have been assimilated and might
have "disappeared" as the Israelites in Assyria had a century and a half
before. As it turned out (with important consequences in world his-
tory) they did not. They survived to return to Judah and to carry on
their traditions and their culture.
It is rather fitting, therefore, that the Second Book of Kings does not
end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the end of
Judah, and the emptying of the land. Rather, it goes a little past that
to show something that reads like the faint promise of a beginning of
better days.
2 Kings 25:27. . . .in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity
of Jehoiachin king of Judah . . . EvU-merodach . . . did lift up the
head of Jehoiachin . . . out of prison.
Nebuchadnezzar had died in 562 b.c. and was succeeded by his son
Amel-Marduk ("man of Marduk"), which, in the Bible, becomes "Evfl-
merodach."
He apparently took a kindlier attitude toward the captive Jews, free-
ing Jehoiachin, who had been briefly king of Judah at the time of
Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of the city.
He may have thought of re-establishing the Jews in their homeland
but he did not reign long enough to carry that thought through, if he
had it at all. In 560 b.c, he was killed in a palace conspiracy, and the
Jews remained captive for another generation.
It is on this moment of renewed optimism, however, that the Second
Book of Kings ends.
13. 1 CHRONICLES
ADAM • JUDAH • BOAZ • ZERUIAH • SOLOMON ■ JOSIAH • JOHANAN •
JECONIAH • LEVI " MERIB-BAAL " DAVID ' SATAN
Adam
Following the Book of 2 Kings is a pair of books (1 Chronicles and
2 Chronicles) that, in a sense, recapitulate the whole of the Bible from
the beginning to the fall of Jerusalem.
These books were written after the return from exile in Babylon. It
was usual to suppose, earlier, that they were written as late as 300 or
even 250 b.c, but more recent thinking on the subject seems to favor
a date as early as 400 b.c.
The Hebrew title of the books is "Dibre Hayyamim" meaning "rec-
ords of the times," for which "chronicles" is certainly an adequate
translation. When the Bible was translated into the Greek, however,
the translators found the books most significant in the sense that they
supplied fuller information concerning the history of Judah than was
contained in the Books of 1 and 2 Kings. For that reason they referred
to the books as "Paraleipomenon" ("concerning things omitted").
This name is retained (in Latin spelling) in the Catholic translations
of the Bible, where one can find 1 and 2 Faralipomenon in place of
1 and 2 Chronicles.
In the Hebrew Bible, the Books of 1 and 2 Chronicles are placed in
the third and least esteemed division, "The Writings," because of their
late composition. What's more, they are placed at the very end of the
section, which makes them the last of all the books in the Hebrew
canon.
In the Latin translation and in the various English versions that
The Empire of David and Solomon
1 CHRONICLES
399
stem from it, the Books of 1 and 2 Chronicles follow (more logically,
perhaps) immediately after 1 and 2 Kings, so much of which they
repeat.
The situation at the time the "Chronicler" was writing was one that
was completely different from that prevailing while the kingdom of
Judah existed. It was then only patriotic to believe that the kingdom
and the Davidic line that ruled it would continue forever, and this
belief is reflected in the Bible. Thus, Nathan the Prophet quotes the
words of the Lord to David:
2 Samuel 7:16. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be estab-
lished for ever before thee . . .
But the Chronicler and his generation knew well that the kingdom
of Judah had come to an end in 586 b.c. and that no king of the
line of David had reigned for nearly two centuries and that, moreover,
there was no immediate prospect of the re-establishment of the kingdom
under a Davidic monarch.
It became necessary to interpret history in another fashion, then,
and to understand the words of God, as given in tradition, in another
way. The Chronicler therefore set about writing a history that would
yield that interpretation.
For his purposes, it was necessary to get through the very earliest
ages in only the briefest possible way and this could be done through
a list of genealogies. Not only would genealogies be the most economi-
cal way of reaching the essential moment at which he wanted to be-
gin his history proper, but it would also be of devouring interest to the
Jews.
The Exile had broken the chain of tradition that had marched
down the centuries during the time of the kingdoms, and had wiped
out many records. Family relationships may have become fuzzy and
national pride had bitten the dust in the decades of imprisonment.
Through an adequate listing of authentic genealogies, each returning
Jew could place himself accurately in the tribal system and society
could renew itself properly.
And so it comes about that the first word of 1 Chronicles is Adam:
1 Chronicles 1:1. Adam, Sheth, Enosh,
400
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Judah
The first chapter suffices for the hasty recital of names that serves
to take care of all the Biblical genealogies but those of Jacob (Israel).
Beginning with Chapter 2, the genealogy of the twelve tribes of Israel
can be given.
In the earlier books of the Bible, the tribes are treated in the
traditional order of their seniority. Reuben comes first, then Simeon,
then Levi, and only then Judah— the fourth-bom. The Chronicler was
aware of this:
1 Chronicles 5:1. . . . the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Is-
rael . . .
Nevertheless, from the vantage point of 400 B.C., it is clear that the
important tribe is Judah:
1 Chronicles 5:2. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of
him came the chief rider . . .
and therefore the genealogy of Judah was taken up first in defiance
of birthright. It was, moreover, taken up in greater detail than that
of any of the other tribes. In fact, the four tribes that made up the
kingdom of Judah (Judah itself; Simeon, which had been amalgamated
into Judah's tribal system before David; Benjamin; and Levi) are
treated in a total of 258 verses, while the remaining tribes of the
forever-vanished kingdom of Israel receive a total of fifty verses. And
Judah itself has the lion's share— one hundred verses.
Boaz
As quickly as he can, the Chronicler proceeds to the ancestry of
David and this goes in part:
1 Chronicles 6:11. . . . and Salma begat Boaz,
1 Chronicles 6:12. And Boaz begat Obed . . .
1 CHRONICLES 4OI
No mention is made of Boaz having begotten Obed by Ruth (see
page 265). This is not because the Chronicler ignores women com-
pletely, for in listing the sons of Judah, he says:
1 Chronicles 2:4. And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez
and Zerah . . .
The Book of Ruth may have been written at about the time that
the Chronicler was working on his own writings and it is not at all
hard to believe that he was aware of its contents (for it had to be
popular or it would not have gotten into the Hebrew canon).
Two possibilities suggest themselves, each with a certain plausibility.
The Book of Ruth may, indeed, have been a piece of historical fiction
and no such woman as Ruth may have appeared in the early records
which the Chronicler used as his source material.
Or else, if the writer of the Book of Ruth made use of an authentic
tradition then it may be that the Chronicler deliberately refused to
use it. The Chronicler was on the side of those who favored a rigid
exclusivism among the returning Jews, a putting away of foreign wives,
and the Book of Ruth was written to present the other side (see page
265). The Chronicler might have preferred to ignore, therefore, the
part-Moabite ancestry of David.
Zeruiah
When Jesse is reached, his children are listed, including David (his
youngest son) and two sisters:
1 Chronicles 2:15. . . . David . . .
1 Chronicles 2:16. Whose sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail . . .
If the Chronicler is correct, then some of David's heroes are close
relatives. Thus, Zeruiah had three sons: Abishai, Joab, and Asahel, who
were all David's lieutenants in his early days as an outlaw. In particular,
Joab rose to be commander in chief. All three were David's nephews.
Again, Abigail was the mother of Amasa, who was Absalom's general
(see page 313) and who briefly replaced Joab as commander in chief.
He, too, was a nephew of David, which may help account for David's
leniency after the crushing of Absalom's rebellion.
402
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Solomon
The third chapter begins with a listing of David's sons. Nineteen
of them are listed and the list is by no means exhaustive.
1 Chronicles 3:9. These were all the sons of David, beside the
sons of the concubines . . .
Of these Solomon is the tenth listed so that there might possibly
have been at least nine sons ahead of him in line for the throne.
The deaths of the 6rst and third (Amnon and Absalom) in the life-
time of David are described in 2 Samuel, and the fourth (Adonijah)
lived to dispute the succession. Of the rest nothing is known.
There follows immediately the line of descent of Solomon, which
includes only those who were kings of Judah:
1 Chronicles 3:10. And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abia [Abi-
jam] his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,
1 Chronicles 3:11. Joram his son . . .
Starting with David, son succeeded father as king of Judah down
to Josiah, a list of seventeen generations, quite a remarkable record for
any dynasty.
Josiah
With Josiah, there is for the first time more than one son listed:
1 Chronicles 3:15. And the sons of ]osiah were . . , Johanan . . .
Jehoiakim . . . Zedekiah . . . Shallum.
1 Chronicles 3:16. And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah . . .
Upon Josiah's death in the battle of Megiddo, one of his sons
succeeded to the throne, Jehoahaz, and this one is not listed by that
name in verse 3:15. In the Book of Jeremiah, however, that prophet
(who lived at the time and witnessed the events) speaks of the matter:
Jeremiah 22:11. . . . Shallum the son of Josiah . . . reigned in-
stead of Josiah . . .
1 CHRONICLES 403
Jeremiah 22:12. ... he shall die in the place whither they have
led him captive.
Jehoahaz was indeed taken captive by Pharaoh-nechoh and kept in
captivity to his death (see page 392). It would seem, then, that
Shallum was the personal name of the prince and Jehoahaz was his
"throne name," assumed when he became king. It is not at all an
uncommon practice for a person to change his name upon becoming
king. Sometimes the name is changed in order to choose one that
has associations with the throne, so that Man of Syria became Ben-
hadad upon becoming king (see page 368) and Pulu of Assyria be-
came Tiglath-Pileser (see page 373). In modem times, the best-known
case of systematic name-changing upon achieving high position is the
case of the Popes at Rome: Achflle Ratti became Pius XI in 1922;
Eugenio Pacelli succeeded him as Pius XII in 1939; Angelo Roncalli
succeeded him as John XXIII in 1958; and Giovanni Montini suc-
ceeded him as Paul VI in 1963.
Apparently Shallum /Jehoahaz was appointed king by popular ac-
claim despite the fact that he was the youngest of Josiah's sons:
2 Kings 23:30. . . . And the people of the land took Jehoahaz
. . . and made him king . . .
It might be conjectured that this was because he was the most anti-
Egyptian of Josiah's sons and therefore most popular. This may be
why Necho had him removed at once and replaced with Jehoiakim,
whom he may have considered more tractable and who was, in any
case, the oldest surviving son of Josiah and therefore the one with
the best claim to the throne anyway. (The eldest son, Johanan, of
whom nothing more is heard, may have died in Josiah's lifetime.)
Jehoiakim is the first king of Judah to replace a brother rather than
a father. In his case, the name by which he is listed in 1 Chronicles
is already his throne name:
2 Kings 23:34. And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim . . . fa'ng . . .
and turned his name to Jehoiakim.
Jehoiakim was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, whose name is given
in 1 Chronicles as Jeconiah.
Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) was on the throne only a short while before
being taken and carried off into lifelong captivity by Nebuchadnezzar
(sharing the fate, if not the captor, of his uncle Jehoahaz).
404 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In his place, Nebuchadnezzar put on the throne the one remaining
son of Josiah; the prince whose name is given as Zedekiah in 3:15.
This, too, is a throne name:
2 Kings 24:17. And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah . . .
king . . . and changed his name to Zedekiah.
Zedekiah was the last reigning king of Judah.
Johanan
In a way, though, it is Johanan, Josiah's first-bom (who probably
died young) who bears the most interesting name. Johanan is a short-
ened version of Jehohanan, meaning "Yahveh is gracious."
The name "Johanan" appears only once in the Biblical books com-
ing before 1 Chronicles and that once is at the very end of the book
immediately preceding— 2 Kings. The name was that of an army officer
of the time of Gedaliah:
2 Kings 25:23. . . . there came to Gedaliah . . . Johanan the
son of Careah, . . .
In the later books of the Bible, the name is mentioned more often.
Remember, now, that the initial "J" in English versions of Biblical
names is equivalent to the Hebrew letter "yodh," which represents the
sound "y." The Greeks would start such a name with their letter
"iota," which we write "I," and which also sounds like a "y" at the
beginning of a word. It is natural, then, that the Greek version of
"Johanan" would be "Ioannes" if we allow further for the absence
of the "h" in the Greek alphabet and for the Greek habit of placing
an "s" at the end of almost all names. This is easily seen to be
equivalent to the German "Johannes," and this, in turn, is easily
shortened to the English "John."
In other words, however strange the name "Johanan" may appear
to us when we come across it in the Old Testament, it is the same
name that we find as "John" in English versions of the New Testa-
ment, and is the name that in one form or another is most common
of all among Europeans and men of European ancestry.
1 CHRONICLES
Jeconiah
The last part of the third chapter traces the line of David through
the Exile. It begins with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), the grandson of Josiah,
who was briefly king of Judah in 597 b.c. and who was carried off
to exile by Nebuchadnezzar. He remained alive and even survived to
be well treated by Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) after Nebuchadnez-
zar's death (see page 396).
1 Chronicles 3:17. And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel . . .
Eight sons are listed, but the first, Assir, is not really a son. It
means "captive" and the Revised Standard Version translates verse
3:17 (using an alternate version of Salathiel's name): "and the sons
of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel."
The sons of Pediah, Jeconiah's third son, are given, and then those
of Zerubbabel the oldest son of Pediah, and so on.
In the volume of the Anchor Bible which deals with 1 Chronicles,
the following approximate birth years are given:
Pedaiah 595 B.C.
Zerubbabel 570 b.c.
Hananiah 545 b.c.
Shechaniah 520 B.C.
Shemaiah 495 b.c.
Neariah 470 b.c.
Elioenai 44; b.c.
Hodaviah 420 b.c.
Hodaviah, according to the genealogy, is the eighth generation after
Jeconiah and the twenty-sixth generation after David.
Hodaviah was the eldest son of Elioenai and he had six younger
brothers, of whom Anani was the youngest. The Anchor Bible esti-
mates that the birth date of the youngest son was about 405 b.c.
Thus, the h'ne of David is followed through for nearly two centuries
after the end of the kingdom and the fact that the record ends with
Anani is one indication that the Chronicler might have been writing
about 400 b.c.
The careful manner in which the Chronicler details the genealogy
406 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
might be taken as a reasonable indication of the fact that the Chron-
icler does not consider the kingdom of Judah or the Davidic line
to have come to an irrevocable end.
Nevertheless, one gets the distinct impression that the Chronicler
is not sanguine about the Davidic line. As the history he is about to
write will demonstrate, there is something he considers an alternate
to the kingdom and its monarch— and that is the Temple and its
High Priest. The Temple had, indeed, been restored in the Chroni-
cler's day and as the supremacy among the tribes passed from Reuben to
Judah, so it might conceivably be that the promise of external existence
would pass from kingdom to Temple.
Levi
Thus, when the Chronicler reaches the tribe of Levi, he gives it a
detailed genealogy second only to that of Judah, for it is from that
tribe that the priesthood is drawn:
1 Chronicles 6:1. The sons of Levi . . .
The list of High Priests is given during the time of the kingdom,
ending with:
1 Chronicles 6:15. And Jehozadak went into captivity . . . by
the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.
Jehozadak was the twelfth in descent from Zadok, who had become
High Priest at the beginning of the reign of Solomon (see page
322). Zadok himself is the ninth in descent from Eleazar, the son of
Aaron.
Merib-baal
The genealogies of the remaining tribes are then run through, more
or less quickly, until the last— Benjamin— is reached. Benjamin is, of
course, the youngest son of Jacob according to tradition, but there are
other possible excuses for its position. Saul, whom David replaced as
king, was a Benjamite, and if David's tribe Judah is considered first,
it is rather neat to consider Saul's tribe Benjamin last. Besides, it is
1 CHRONICLES 407
through Benjamin that one approaches the genealogy of Saul and it
is with the death of Saul that the Chronicler intends to begin his
history proper.
1 Chronicles 8:33. . . . Saul begat Jonathan . . .
1 Chronicles 8:34. And the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal;
and Merib-baal begat Micah.
Merib-baal is an alternate name of Mephibosheth (see page 309)
and through Micah, Saul's descendants are continued many genera-
tions, presumably to the time of exile. Apparently, the line of Saul
(though reduced by David's policy to Mephibosheth alone) managed
to flourish. Referring to the later members of the line:
1 Chronicles 8:40. And the sons of Ulam . . . had many sons,
and sons' sons, an hundred and fifty.
It is interesting to note, though, that at no time past David's reign
is there a record of any attempt to restore the line of Saul.
David
David, the human hero of the Chronicler's history, is not a hero in
his capacity as a human being, but rather as an ideal founder of Tem-
ple-worship. Of his life story only the central "Temple-core" is kept;
that plus lists of names of genealogical interest. His youth, his ad-
ventures with Saul and Jonathan, the personal sins and problems of
later life— all are eliminated. Even his conquests, when mentioned, are
important only because the loot gained makes it possible for the Tem-
ple to be built, furnished, and ornamented.
Thus, Saul's death is described and then:
1 Chronicles 11:3. . . . came all the elders of Israel ... to
Hebron . . . and they anointed David king over Israel . . .
There is no mention of the seven years in which Ish-bosheth was
king of Israel in the Trans-Jordan, of Abner's defection and of the
political intrigues that followed (see page 300). One would suppose
that in a single moment of exaltation, David was unanimously raised
to the kingship.
Once David is king, the Chronicler moves on to the capture of
408
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jerusalem, so that we now have the man who initiates Temple-worship,
and the place where it is initiated. The bringing of the ark of the
covenant to Jerusalem is told in great detail, as is David's thwarted
intention to build the actual Temple himself, and the preparation he
makes to have his successor do so. Then we pass on to his death and
the succession of Solomon to the throne. There is no mention of the
dynastic dispute between Solomon and Adonijah (see page 320).
This picture of David's reign is, in our modem view, so limited
and partial as to amount to a falsification of history. There was,
however, undoubtedly no conscious attempt at falsification as such on
the part of the Chronicler, who did not have our view of history. Rather,
he was trying, according to his lights, to "truthify" history, so to speak.
That is, he saw in the history of the Davidic monarchy a central thread
which he wished to expose more clearly to all men. He therefore cut
away what were to him obscuring irrelevancies and painted that
central thread in brighter colors to make it more visible. The result is
history which we might call "impressionistic" and its purpose, as with
impressionistic art, is to make apparent what realism might hide.
Satan
Only once in the Chronicler's history does David appear less than
ideal and that is in connection with his sin in taking a census. This
item, however, must be included, for it is central to the theme. It was
on the threshing floor where David, according to the legend, had seen
the angel (see page 319) that the Temple was to be built. Yet, even
so, the tale is told with an important difference.
In the pre-Exilic version of the story, it is stated:
2 Samuel 24:1. . . . the anger of the Lord was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel
and Judah.
God alone is here viewed as the source of all things and it is God
who inspires David's evil impulse. By the time of the Chronicler,
however, there had come to seem to be a flavor of blasphemy in
supposing that God would punish Israel by first inspiring an evil act
that he could then use as an excuse for the punishment. As the
Chronicler tells the story, then:
1 CHRONICLES 409
1 Chronicles 21:1. And Satan stood up against Israel, and pro-
voked David to number Israel.
The Hebrew word satan means "adversary"; that is, one who op-
poses. It does not necessarily have to have a supernatural sense, and is
occasionally used in the Bible to represent an ordinary human ad-
versary. The Hebrew word is then translated as simply "adversary." A
case of this kind is in the Book of 1 Kings, where Rezon of Syria rebels
against Solomon:
1 Kings 11:24. ^ n< * ne was an odverRMy to Israel all the days of
Solomon . . .
Sometime after the Babylonian captivity, however, the notion arose
that there was a supernatural Adversary; a being whose official duty it
was to work for man's evil as God worked for man's good. This
capital-S Satan was without power to force men to do evil, but he could
tempt men to sin and turn against Cod, and it was by succumbing to
such temptation that man brought evil into the world.
Such a concept was useful in that it helped explain the source of
evil, for it is always difficult to explain the existence of evil and misery
in the world and the frequent apparent triumph of bad over good in
the face of the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God. Even if one
explained that evil came as a punishment to sinning mankind, where
came the evil within man that caused him to sin in the first place?
Thus, the notion of a supernatural Satan pushing man toward sin was
convenient.
And the concept came, very likely, by way of the Persians.
By 400 b.c, when the Chronicler was writing, the Persians had
become the dominant nation in Asia, and Persian thought would be
expected to be very influential among all nations which, like Judah,
were under Persian rule. This was particularly so since Persian religion
had just been systematized by a great prophet, Zarathustra (Zoroaster,
in the Latinized form of the name), at about the time of the return
from Babylonian captivity, and the earth rang, so to speak, with the
new doctrine.
Zoroastrianism offered a dualistic view of the universe. There was
a principle of good, Ahura-Mazda (or Ormuzd), and a principle of
evil, Ahriman, which were viewed as virtually independent of each
other and very nearly equal. The creation of the world, its develop-
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
ment and history, were all incidents in the unending celestial warfare
between these two principles, each at the head of a separate army of
innumerable spirits.
There is a certain exciting drama to such a view of the universe,
and Judaism was penetrated by it to a limited extent. A principle of
evil, Satan, was conceived of, but never viewed as independent of
God or equal to Him. Instead, Satan is considered to be as surely a
creation of God as man himself is.
In later times, he was described as having been an angel originally,
even the chief of the angels. Through pride, however, he refused to
obey God and bow down to man at the time of the creation of Adam.
He was therefore, with numerous followers, ejected from heaven. Once
fallen, he became twisted with envy and infinite malice and took on
the task of tempting mankind to fall from grace as he himself had.
Satan is not mentioned, as such, in any of the books of the Bible
before 1 Chronicles, but the workings of evil found here and there
could be reinterpreted in the new light. Most importantly, Satan was
equated with the serpent who tempted Eve in the garden of Eden.
The tale of Satan, of his rebellion against God, and of his fall
from heaven, forms the central framework of Milton's great epic
poem Paradise Lost, which is based on the first chapters of Genesis.
Furthermore, Satan does not perform his evil task without remaining
under the firm control of God. It is even possible to view Satan as
fulfilling the necessary function of tempting mankind and of improv-
ing the nature of the soul by exercising it, so to speak; keeping it
muscular by giving it temptations to overcome. Satan might then, too,
act as a sieve separating the better souls from the worse.
It was part of Satan's function to carry an evil report of man to
God, to slander them. (This shows itself best in the Book of Job.)
The Greek word for "slanderer" is diabolos (literally "to throw across,"
since slanderous words are like obstacles thrown across the path to
block progress) and from this comes our word "devil" and the adjective
"diabolical." The word "devil" is used in places in the King James
Version to refer to woodland fertility spirits, which are called "satyrs" in
the Revised Standard Version (see page 159), but the capital-D Devil
is Satan. Satan, the Adversary, is also the Devil, the Slanderer. The
Mohammedans call the Adversary Eblis, also from diabolos.
In Zoroastrianism, the powers of evil who fight under the banner of
Ahriman are the "devas," but this has nothing to do with "devil."
1 CHRONICLES 411
Quite the contrary! The same word occurs in Sanskrit and is given to
the gods and the spirits of good in India.
This is not really surprising for the gods of one people are the
demons of their neighbors. Undoubtedly, Indian religious thought was
penetrating Persia in Zarathustra's time and in beating it back, the
Persians stigmatized the alien gods as demons— as the Jews considered
Canaanite gods to be abominations, and as the Christians later con-
verted the Greek and Roman gods into evil spirits.
The word "deva" reaches us not through Persian but through San-
skrit and therefore retains its godlike aspect. From it we get the
Greek dios, the Latin deus, and the French dieu, all meaning "God,"
as well as our English adjective "divine."
14. 2 CHRONICLES
JOPPA • MOUNT MORIAH • ARABIA ' REHOBOAM • ABIJAH • ASA •
JEHOSHAPHAT • JEHOIADA * AMAZIAH • UZZIAH ' AHAZ ■ HEZF.KIAH •
MANASSEH • THE PRAYER OF MAN ASSES 1 JOSIAH • KING OF THE CHALDEES
Joppa
What interests the Chronicler concerning the reign of Solomon is
his building of the Temple and his wealth. Since, to the Chronicler,
material benefits accompany righteous action, and since no righteous
action is greater than the building of the Temple, Solomon's wealth is
described in terms of unbridled exaggeration.
Solomon arranges with Hiram of Tyre (here called Huram) for
the supplies needed for the Temple. Hiram agrees:
2 Chronicles 2:16. And we will cut wood . . . and . . . bring it
to thee in floats by sea to Joppa; and thou shalt carry it up to
Jerusalem.
Joppa (the modem Jaffa) is a port on the Mediterranean about
thirty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem. It was the nearest sizable har-
bor (though not a very good one) to the capital city and was the nat-
ural seaport to which to send material bound for Jerusalem.
It first enters history as one of the towns captured by Thutmose III
when that Egyptian conqueror established his empire in Asia. After
the decline of Egypt, Joppa came under Phoenician control. It is men-
tioned in the Book of Joshua as part of the idealized territory of the
tribe of Dan, but it never came under Israelite control at any time be-
fore David (none of the coastal strip did— that remained Philistine
to the south and Phoenician to the north). It is only now, therefore,
except for the mention in Joshua, that Joppa appears in the Bible.
{MMitamamS*)
VnJfrpofltktfortcmomle
Israel and Judah
414 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
As the seaport of Jerusalem, Joppa was of considerable importance
at the time of the Crusades, changing hands between the Christians and
Moslems several times, but eventually settling down to a long Turkish
control.
In 1909, when Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire and
when Joppa or Jaffa was a strongly Arabic town, the Jews of the
city established a suburb of their own, three miles to the north, which
they called Tel Aviv. After World War I, when Palestine became a
British mandate, the Jewish town, thanks to immigration and financial
help from abroad, quickly grew into a modern city designed along
Western lines.
After Israel won its independence in 1948, Tel Aviv served as the
interim capital until 1950, when the new city of Jerusalem took its
place. In 1950, Tel Aviv was combined with Jaffa (from which most
of the Arabs had departed) into a single municipality. Tel Aviv/ Jaffa
is now the largest city in Israel, with a population of about four
hundred thousand.
Joppa bears the rather odd distinction of being one of the few
Canaanite cities to play a role in a Greek myth. The hero Perseus had
killed the monstrous Medusa in the far-off land of the Hyperboreans
and was hurrying home when he spied a naked woman chained to a
rock on a cliff outside the city of Joppa. This was Andromeda, being
sacrificed to a sea monster by her father Cepheus and her mother
Cassiopeia, who were the Ethiopian king and queen of Joppa. He
rescued her, of course.
But why should the rulers of Joppa be described as Ethiopians?
If it is not to be dismissed as merely the ignorance of geography on the
part of the Greek mythmakers, we can speculate, perhaps, as fol-
lows—
While the Greek legends may have reached their later, relatively
sophisticated, forms at the hands of Greek poets of the Golden Age,
they were undoubtedly based on hoary old tales stretching back into
the dim past. The legends are placed in Mycenaean times before the
Trojan War— a time when Egypt was the greatest power in the world
and the Pharaohs of the 18th and 19th dynasties controlled adjacent
portions of Asia, including Canaan. Therefore, it was fair enough to
speak of an Egyptian king of Joppa, meaning the governor who ruled
under Pharaoh.
In the eighth century b.c, however, when Greece was becoming a
2 CHRONICLES
4*5
colonizing land and when her ships were pushing out over the Mediter-
ranean for the first time since the fall of the gTeat kingdoms of
Trojan times, she became aware of an Egypt that was then under an
Ethiopian dynasty. It was easy to read this backward into time and
replace the Egyptian "king" at Joppa by an Ethiopian one.
Mount Moriah
The building of the Temple is begun:
2 Chronicles 3:1. Then Solomon began to build the house
of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah ... in the place that
David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Oman the Jebusite.
Thus, the place of the Temple is here tied in with two awesome
episodes of the past, something that the description in 1 Kings did not
do. At the threshingfloor of Oman (called Araunah in 2 Samuel; see
page 319) David had seen an angel, and in the land of Moriah, Abra-
ham had nearly sacrificed Isaac (see page 87).
(The Samaritans, on the other hand, maintained that Abraham
had nearly sacrificed Isaac on Mount Gerizim, since that was their
sacred mountain.)
Arabia
Once the Temple is completed, the Chronicler tells of the visit of
the queen of Sheba and continues to describe the wealth and glory of
Solomon:
2 Chronicles 9:14. . . . And all the kings of Arabia . . . brought
gold and silver to Solomon.
In the earlier books of the Bible, the tribes in the arid regions south
and east of Canaan were named separately, so that there is mention
of Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Amalekites, Midianites, and so
on.
Only now is the general geographic term "Arabia" used. "Arabia"
is the Latinized version of "Arab," which is the general Semitic term
for the people of the desert beyond Canaan. The meaning of "Arab"
416
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
is not certain. It might simply mean "nomad" for the word resembles
the Hebrew arabah, meaning "steppe." It might also mean some-
thing self-glorifying like "man of the master race."
In any case, Arabia is now the name given to the large, mostly
desert peninsula south of the Fertile Crescent, which is about one
million square miles in area and has a population, nowadays, of about
ten million.
Many people think of it as the original home of the peoples speak-
ing Semitic languages. Since it is not a fertile territory, its population
easily multiplies past the point where the land will support it and
tribes will therefore wander northward into one portion or another of
the Fertile Crescent. This tendency may well have been most marked
in prehistoric times, when the trend to aridity was first making itself
felt, but it has continued well into historic times, the most recent and,
in some respects, greatest eruption coming in the seventh century
a.d., when Arabs spread Mohammedanism across vast tracts in Asia and
Africa.
The Akkadians may have emerged from Arabia to invade Sumeria
at the dawn of history and give the area its conquering hero, Sargon.
The various Canaanite groups may have come from Arabia, as may the
later Aramaeans and Chaldeans, to say nothing of the Hebrew tribes
themselves.
Rehoboam
For the period after Solomon's death, the Chronicler follows the
history of Judah, and of Judah only. The history of Israel, except where
it impinges on Judah, is ignored, for in the Chronicler's time it was
clear that Israel had been a dead end and was gone. Even Elijah and
Elisha are ignored. It was through Judah and Judah alone, the Chroni-
cler was certain, that the eternal nature of God's promises were to be
fulfilled.
The history of Judah is a history of the Temple and of the mon-
archy. The Temple is a great constant; the ideal place of worship and
the true hero of the history. The monarchy, on the other hand, is a
swinging pendulum. There are good kings who reform worship and
bring it in line with the Temple ideal; there are bad kings who pervert
2 CHRONICLES
4*7
worship and encourage idolatry. There are kings who are at times good
and at times bad.
The Chronicler's thesis is that true religion and worldly prosperity
go hand in hand; good kings prosper and bad kings suffer. To make
that thesis clear, both prosperity and suffering are enormously ex-
aggerated. Good kings win over vast hordes of enemies and are wealthy
indeed; bad kings lose enormous battles. Repentance converts bad to
good at once; apostasy as quickly converts good to bad, and at every
stage of the game there is some prophet or priest to encourage the
good and denounce the bad.
In the Book of 1 Kings, for instance, Rehoboam, the successor of
Solomon, is briefly dealt with and is described as uniformly unfortu-
nate. He brings about the schism between Israel and Judah through
nothing less than criminal folly, and he suffers the invasion of Shishak
of Egypt.
In the Book of 2 Chronicles, however, there is a pendulum swing.
Immediately after the schism, the Levites in Israel are described as
flocking to Judah:
2 Chronicles 11:13. And the priests and the Levites that were
in all Israel resorted to him [Rehoboam] out of all their coasts.
The Book of 1 Kings does say that Jeroboam is setting up his
shrines in Bethel and Dan appointed non-Levites as priests—
1 Kings 12:31. . . . he . . . made priests of the lowest of the
people, which were not of the sons of Levi.
—so that it seems reasonable that Levites should emigrate to Judah
where the Temple-worship and priestly honor would be open to them.
This is not specified in 1 Kings, but it suits the Chronicler's purpose
to emphasize this and possibly exaggerate it since it shows that only
in Judah did true religion continue and that what religion remained
in Israel was totally false.
Rehoboam and the Levites at first behaved themselves:
2 Chronicles 11:17. . . . for three years they walked in the way
of David and Solomon.
and therefore Rehoboam prospered:
418
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
2 Chronicles 11:21. ... he took eighteen wives, and threescore
concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daugh-
ters.
But then he backslid:
2 Chronicles 12:1. . . . Rehoboam . . . forsook the law . . . and
all Israel with him.
2 Chronicles 12:2. And . . . Shishak king of Egypt came up
against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed . . .
2 Chronicles 12:3. With twelve hundred chariots, and threescore
thousand horsemen: and . . . people . . . without number . . .
the Lubims, the Sukkiims, and the Ethiopians.
The Chronicler exaggerates the size of the army, but the details are
otherwise plausible. Shishak is the first of the Libyan dynasty and the
"Lubims" are, without much question, the Libyan cohorts that served
under him. The Ethiopians are mercenaries from the south. The Suk-
kiims are less easily identifiable but it may be a reference to Succoth
(or Sukkoth), a town in the eastern portion of the Nile delta (see
page 141). The Sukkiims may therefore be the native Egyptians of the
delta.
As a result of the invasion, Rehoboam and the nation swung back in
response to a warning by Shemaiah the prophet:
2 Chronicles 12:6. Whereupon the princes of Israel and the king
humbled themselves . . .
In consequence of that, while Jerusalem and the Temple were looted,
king and nation were not entirely destroyed.
Abijah
Succeeding Rehoboam was his son Abijah, which may be the throne
name, where Abijam (the name used in 1 Kings) was the proper
name.
The Chronicler usually gives the name of the king's mother at the
time his accession is noted, since this is of genealogical interest. In the
case of Abijam there seems to be some confusion in this respect
2 CHRONICLES 419
1 Kings 15:2. . . . his [Abi jam's] mother's name was Maachah,
the daughter of Abishalom.
2 Chronicles 11:20. ... he [Rehoboam] took Maachah the
daughter of Absalom, which bare him Abijah . . .
2 Chronicles 13:2. . . . His [Abijah's] mother's name . . . was
Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah . . .
Absalom, David's rebel son, did have a mother named Maachah,
and may have had a daughter (or granddaughter) of the same name,
although she is never mentioned in the chapters dealing with Absalom.
And who Uriel might be is unknown. There is no likelihood that the
confusion can ever be straightened out but it is interesting that if
Absalom is really Abijah's grandfather (or great-grandfather) then for
all that his bid for the throne was lost, his blood flows in all the
kings of the Davidic line after Rehoboam.
In 1 Kings, it is simply stated that Abijah (Abi jam) of Judah and
Jeroboam of Israel were at war, and no details are given. However,
the stronger Israel did not manage to beat down the weaker Judah
and the Chronicler uses that as a way of demonstrating his thesis. He
describes a battle in which eight hundred thousand men of Israel
fought four hundred thousand men of Judah. Abijah made a rousing
pro-Temple speech to the enemy before the battle and even though the
Israelites outnumbered the Judeans and surrounded them besides, the
Judeans won a great victory and
2 Chronicles 13:17. . . . there fell down slain of Israel five hun-
dred thousand men
so that Jeroboam was permanently enfeebled and soon died:
2 Chronicles 13:21. But Abijah waxed mighty, and married four-
teen wives . . .
Asa
Asa, the son of Abijah, is described as a reforming king. Conse-
quently, one can be confident that he has nothing to fear in the face
of a new invasion— one that is not mentioned in 1 Kings:
420
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
2 Chronicles 14:9. And there came out against them [Judah]
Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand and three
hundred chariots and came unto Mareshah.
The thought of a million-man army swarming into Judah (Mareshah
is about twenty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem) in the ninth cen-
tury b.c. rather staggers the imagination. The Chronicler, however, is
just emphasizing the glory of Asa's eventual victory and the figure need
not be taken seriously.
2 Chronicles 14:11. And Asa cried unto the Lord . . .
2 Chronicles 14:12. So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before
Asa . . .
2 Chronicles 14:13. And Asa . . . pursued them unto Gerar . . .
2 Chronicles 14:14. And they smote all the cities round about
Gerar . . .
The Chronicler may exaggerate and moralize but he does not, ap-
parently, manufacture stories outright Zerah and his invasion are not
mentioned in 1 Kings, which, however, concentrates to a large extent
on Israel, and it may well be that Zerah's attack was actually only a
minor raid by a border chieftain.
Shishak, after his own successful raid, may have placed an army
detachment at Gerar, south of Judah, and in Asa's time, an Ethiopian
mercenary may have been in charge of that detachment It would be
his raid that was beaten off.
Asa reigned from 915 to 875 b.c. and in this period the second
Pharaoh of the Libyan dynasty reigned. He was Osorkon I, who reigned
from 919 to 883 b.c. It is not beyond the realm of the possible that
Zerah was Osorkon.
In Asa's case, however, the pendulum swings back. He is pressed
hard by Baasha of Israel and therefore makes an alliance with Syria.
Such trust in worldly alliances rather than in the Lord offends the
prophetic party, and the Chronicler hastens from that to an account of
Asa's death through a disease of the feet. He puts in a further touch of
disapproval in a pair of verses that are sometimes used in modem
times as a jibe at the medical profession:
2 Chronicles 16:12. . . . yet in his disease he sought not to the
Lord but to the physicians.
2 Chronicles 16:13. And Asa slept with his fathers . . .
2 CHRONICLES
421
Jehoshaphat
The next king, Jehoshaphat, is described by the Chronicler as a
great reforming monarch, and his reign is therefore a time of peace
and power:
2 Chronicles 17:12. And Jehoshaphat waxed great exceedingly , . .
The fact that Jehoshaphat was a loyal and even subservient ally
of Ahab of Israel (the worldly reason for Judah's peace and prosperity
at this time) is mentioned in connection with their combined war
at Ramoth-gilead, during the course of which Ahab died (see page
352). Jehoshaphat is only mildly denounced for this, however.
His continuing reform policy leads to a great victory over the
Moabites and Ammonites, but his continuing alliance with Israel is
blamed for the failure of his trading fleet (see page 351).
Jehoiada
With Jehoram, the husband of Athaliah and therefore the son-in-law
of Ahab and Jezebel (see page 362), and his son Ahaziah (the son
also of Athaliah) there is a serious reaction. Under the influence of
Athaliah, Phoenician cults are brought into Judah. Both monarchs
came to a bad end, therefore. Under Jehoram, Jerusalem was taken
and sacked by Philistines and Arabs and the king died soon after of
an incurable disease of the intestines. As for Ahaziah, he was slain in
Israel, in the course of the revolution of Jehu (see page 364).
Athaliah's usurpation and the saving of Joash is then taken up (see
page 367) and here the hero is Jehoiada the High Priest and the
husband of Jehoshabeath (Jehosheba), the royal infant's aunt.
Jehoiada organizes the conspiracy that kills Athaliah and places
Joash on the throne, but does so with meticulous care that the Temple
ritual be observed in all its details. He reinstates reform and as long
as he lives all goes well. His death is recorded in a way that is reminis-
cent of Genesis:
2 Chronicles 24:15. But Jehoiada waxed old, and was full of days
when he died; an hundred and thirty years old was he when he
died.
422
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Thereafter Joash backslid and when he is reproved for this by
Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, the king has Zechariah stoned to death
in the court of the Temple:
2 Chronicles 24:22. Thus Joash the king remembered not the
kindness which Jehoiada . . . had done to him, but slew his son . . .
As a result a small Syrian army invaded the land and defeated a
larger Judean defending force; Joash was afflicted with disease and,
finally, was assassinated by men of his court.
Amaziah
The next king, Amaziah, began his reign quite well. Having de-
cided to reconquer Edom, which had rebelled after Jehoshaphat's death,
he hired a hundred thousand Israelite mercenaries. When the prophetic
party objected to this dependence on worldly help, Amaziah released
them and forfeited the money with which he had hired them. As a
result:
2 Chronicles 25:11. And Amaziah . . . smote of the children of
Seir ten thousand.
Amaziah's victory led him into trouble, however, for he was at-
tracted by the Edomite gods.
2 Chronicles 25:14. . . . Amaziah . . . brought the gods of the
children of Seir, and . . . bowed down . . . before them . . ,
It is this which the Chronicler finds to be the cause of Amaziah's
subsequent defeat by Joash of Israel (see page 369) and his final as-
sassination at the hands of conspirators.
Vzziah
Amaziah was succeeded by his son:
2 Chronicles 26:1. Then all the people of Judah took Vzziah . . .
and made him king . . .
2 CHRONICLES 423
Uzziah is, apparently, the throne name of the king, while his proper
name (used in 2 Kings) is Azariah. Uzziah was a reforming king and
this accounted to the Chronicler for the fact that he defeated the
Philistines and Ammonites, that he successfully reorganized the Judean
army and strongly fortified Jerusalem.
2 Chronicles 26:15. . . . And his name spread far abroad; for he
was marvellously helped, tUi he was strong.
In a worldly sense, Uzziah's prosperity was probably due to his care-
ful subservience to the successful Jeroboam II of Israel. The prosperous
Uzziah, however, overstepped the bounds and trespassed on the pre-
rogatives of the priesthood. (David and Solomon had successfully done
so, but the position of the priests had hardened since those days.)
2 Chronicles 26:16. . . . when he [Uzziah] was strong, his heart
was lifted up . . . and [he] went into the temple of the Lord to
burn incense . . .
He was promptly stricken with leprosy and remained a leper till he
died.
Ahaz
The Chronicler's pendulum continues to swing. Jotham succeeds
his father Uzziah and continues the reform policy. In consequence, he
defeats the Ammonites.
Under Ahaz, the next king, there is a reaction and Judah is
promptly defeated by the Syrians. And as Ahaz's idolatry is particularly
heinous, the punishment described is extravagantly high:
2 Chronicles 28:6. For Pekah [of Israel] . . . slew in Judah an
hundred and twenty thousand in one day . . . because they had for-
saken the Lord . . .
Hezekiah
Ahaz's son Hezekiah is, however, the greatest reformer of all, in
the Chronicler's view. Hezekiah is, indeed, exalted by him to a point
of equality with the later king, Josiah. This makes sense from the
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Chronicler's standpoint, since Hezekiah was victorious in battle and
Josiah was defeated, so that the reforming deeds of the former must
at least equal, if not surpass, those of the latter.
Hezekiah began by reopening and rededicating the Temple, which
apparently had been closed during the disastrous reign of Ahaz. He
then prepared and kept an extremely elaborate Passover and followed
that by the destruction of all idolatrous altars in the kingdom.
Following all this righteous behavior, Sennacherib invaded Judah
and laid siege to Jerusalem (see page 384), and to the Chronicler
it seems perfectly natural that the Assyrian should retreat without be-
ing able to take the city.
2 Chronicles 32:27. And Hezekiah had exceeding much riches
and honour . . .
2 Chronicles 32:30. . . . And Hezekiah prospered in all his
works.
Manasseh
But following what to the Chronicler was the best of the kings of
Judah in the days after Solomon, came his son Manasseh, who was
the worst. He restored all the ways of his grandfather, Ahaz:
2 Chronicles 33:9. So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants
of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen . . .
Now the Chronicler is in a dilemma, for Manasseh reigned for fifty-
five years and, as far as we can tell from 2 Kings, that reign was one
of peace and quiet.
The Chronicler therefore brings disaster upon him; a disaster not
mentioned in 2 Kings:
2 Chronicles 33:11. Wherefore the Lord brought upon him the cap-
tains of the host of the king of Assyria, which took Manasseh . . .
and bound him . . . and carried him to Babylon.
Now the Chronicler may color heavily, but he does not, apparently,
attempt outright invention. We may assume then that something hap-
pened in the reign of Manasseh which the Chronicler was able to
interpret as captivity.
2 CHRONICLES 425
It is certain that Judah was an Assyrian tributary in the days of
Manasseh and tributary kings were not uncommonly forced to visit
the capital as an expression of loyalty or to engage in some administra-
tive function or other. Assyrian records speak of two occasions on which
Manasseh was present in the capital. One of these occasions was in
672 b.c. after Manasseh had been reigning for twenty years. Esarhad-
don was then king of Assyria and was anxious to assure his son and
heir, Asshurbanipal, a quiet succession. He therefore ordered the vari-
ous vassal kings, including Manasseh, to Assyria to swear allegiance
and vow loyalty.
Manasseh was not actually taken to Assyria by a conquering army
but it is quite possible that he left in the company of an Assyrian
military guard and the people (and even Manasseh himself) could not
be quite sure that the dread Esarhaddon might not decide to keep
him captive and replace him on the throne with someone else. Out of
this, it was easy for the Chronicler to devise Manasseh 's captivity and
point the moral.
However, Manasseh returned from Assyria and ruled for another
generation. That could not be denied and it had to be explained
according to the Chronicler's system. The only way was to have
Manasseh repent and then return to Jerusalem as a reforming king
(something that is not mentioned in 2 Kings, nor in the words of the
contemporary prophet Jeremiah).
2 Chronicles 33:12. And when he [Manasseh] was in affliction,
he besought the Lord . . . and humbled himself greatly . . .
2 Chronicles 33:13. And prayed unto him; and he [the Lord]
. . . heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem . . .
The Prayer of Manasses
Particular interest would naturally be centered about the prayer of
Manasseh. Because Manasseh was so consummate and notorious a sin-
ner, his redemption by prayer was a clear indication that all men might
find forgiveness if properly penitent and this was a matter of great theo-
logical interest Naturally, there was curiosity as to the nature of the
prayer, particularly since the Chronicler says the prayer exists in the
records, even though he does not give it himself.
4*6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
2 Chronicles 33:18. Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and
his prayer unto his God . . . are written in the book of the kings of
Israel.
2 Chronicles 33:19. His prayer also, and how God was intreated of
him, . . . are written among the sayings of the seers.
If, by "the book of the kings of Israel," the Biblical Book of 2 Kings
is meant, the Chronicler errs, for the prayer is not to be found there
(or is no longer to be found there, at any rate). As for the "sayings
of the seers" in which the prayer is to be found, this is lost.
In later years, however, perhaps about 100 B.C., a prayer was written
by an unnamed poet, a prayer designed for the use of sinners who
craved mercy. It was a short prayer, only fifteen verses long, but was
so beautiful that it became easy to believe that it was indeed the prayer
that had been uttered by Manasseh in his Assyrian dungeon. It there-
fore came to be included in some editions of the Bible as that prayer.
In particular, it was included in the Greek translation of the Bible
that circulated among the Greek-speaking Jews of the city of Alexan-
dria, in Egypt.
This translation is called the Septuagint, from the Latin word for
"seventy." According to legend, Ptolemy II, king of Egypt, was on
good terms with his subjects, the Alexandrian Jews, and agreed to
help them prepare a translation of their holy books. He brought in
seventy-two scholars (altered by later legends to an even seventy) from
Jerusalem at his own expense and had them translate the first five
books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) into Greek. It was the first trans-
lation of any of the Biblical books into a foreign language. Over the
next two centuries, additional books were translated and these even-
tually included the supposed prayer of Manasseh (which may, to be
sure, have been written in Greek to begin with).
About 90 a.d., Jewish scholars gathered in a Judean town named
Jamnia, about thirty miles west of Jerusalem. Twenty years before,
the Romans had sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple and the
Jews were scattered abroad. Only the Bible and the tenets of Judaism
which it contained could be counted on to hold them together. There
had therefore to be one standard Bible for all Jews and the scholars
had to decide of what books this Bible would consist.
The books they accepted now make up the Jewish Bible. In general,
though, they did not accept those books, however edifying, that were
2 CHRONICLES 427
written after about 150 b.c. Those were too clearly the work of men
rather than of God. One of the books not accepted by the Jewish
scholars was the prayer of Manasseh.
Some of the eliminated books nevertheless remained in the Sep-
tuagint. Christian scholars made use of the Septuagint, and when
Latin translations were made, the books eliminated by the Jewish
scholars were translated and kept. Some are still to be found in Eng-
lish-language Bibles used by Catholics today.
Jerome, who about aj>. 400 prepared the Vulgate, or the official
Latin Bible now used by the Catholic Church, worked in Palestine,
learned Hebrew, used the assistance of rabbis, and consulted Hebrew
versions of the Bible as well as the Septuagint. He knew of the differ-
ence in the books they contained.
For those books contained in the Greek version and not in the
Hebrew, Jerome used the word "Apocrypha." This word means "hid-
den" and, after all, some of the books in the Greek Bible had been
withdrawn and, therefore, "hidden" from the reader who studied the
Hebrew Bible. Thus, the prayer of Manasseh becomes one of the
apocryphal books, or, to put the phrase in a slightly different form,
part of the Apocrypha.
The Protestant versions of the Bible (including the King James)
follow the Hebrew system and do not include the Apocrypha. For that
reason, the prayer of Manasseh, is not to be found in the King
James version of the Bible. Nevertheless, the apocryphal books were
put into English by the translators of the King James Version and
exist also in the Revised Standard Version. Since the translation was
from the Greek, the Greek form of Manasseh is used and the final "-s"
used in Greek names makes the book "The Prayer of Manasses." In
the Revised Standard Version, however, it is "The Prayer of Manas-
seh."
Josiah
Amon, who follows Manasseh, is another backslider and is assas-
sinated—but then comes Josiah.
Although the Chronicler has placed as much of the reforming credit
as possible upon Hezekiah, there is no question but that after the
428
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
reigns of Manasseh and Amon, reform is once again needed, and the
tradition of Josiah's work is, in any case, too strong to be ignored. The
tale is therefore repeated, complete with the discovery of the Book of
Deuteronomy and the celebration of the great Passover.
Yet Josiah died in battle and the Chronicler had to explain that. Of
course, the death was, in one sense, a blessing, for it meant that
Josiah would not survive to see the destruction of the Temple and of
the kingdom.
This is not, however, enough for the Chronicler, who needs a positive
cause. Therefore, on the occasion of Josiah's fatal war against Necho
of Egypt, the Chronicler adds something not present in 2 Kings. As
the battle of Megiddo approaches, the Egyptian monarch sends am-
bassadors to the Judean, with the message:
2 Chronicles 36:21. ... J come not against thee this day . . .
God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling
with God, who is with me . . .
2 Chronicles 36:22. Nevertheless Josiah . . . hearkened not unto
the words of Necho from the mouth of God . . .
In other words, Josiah died because in this case he was disobedient
to God.
King of the Chaldees
The reigns of the sons and grandson of Josiah, ending with Zedekiah,
are hastened through briefly. All backslid as did the people and the
priests:
2 Chronicles 36:14. Moreover all the chief of the priests, and the
people, transgressed very much . . .
They were warned by prophets but that did no good:
2 Chronicles 36:16. But they [the people] mocked the mes-
sengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets,
until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was
no remedy.
2 Chronicles 36:17. Therefore he brought upon them the king of
the Chaldees [Nebuchadnezzar] . . .
2 CHRONICLES
So, ironically, history comes full circle. One wonders if the Chroni-
cler, in using the phrase "king of the Chaldees" rather than the more
natural "king of Babylon," does not deliberately stress the irony.
After all, Abraham, to whom Canaan was first promised, reached that
land from Ur of the Chaldees (see page 56) and now the Jews are
carried out of that land by the king of the Chaldees.
15. EZRA
THE CHRONICLER * CYRUS, KING OF PERSIA • JEREMIAH ' SHESHBAZZAR •
ZERUBBABEL • JESHUA * THE ADVERSARIES OF JUDAH • DARIUS I •
AHASUERUS • ARTAXERXES " ARAMAIC * ASNAPPER • ACHMETHA • EZRA •
HATTUSH
The Chronicler
The Chronicler did not complete his story with the downfall of
Zedekiah and the destruction of the Temple in 586 b.c. He was
writing, after all, about 400 b.c. at the earliest estimate and much
remained to be told.
The actual period of exile was of little interest to him, for the
Temple, the non-human hero of his history, did not then exist. He
therefore fills in that period with nothing more than genealogies like
that of the line of descent of Jeconiah in the third chapter of 1 Chron-
icles (see page 405).
A half century after Zedekiah's death, however, there begins a period
in which the project of the rebuilding of the Temple comes under
discussion and now the Chronicler's interest is aroused once more.
Immediately after his account of the end of the kingdom of Judah,
therefore, the Chronicler passes on to an account of a royal proclama-
tion by the new king of a new nation; a proclamation which led to
the construction of a new Temple.
Because of this gap in time and the radically sudden change in
atmosphere from an established kingdom and a centuries-old Temple
to a band of impoverished returnees trying desperately to build a house
of worship, there was a tendency to divide the Chronicler's- history
at this point. The earlier portion makes up 1 Chronicles and 2 Chron-
Jerusalem Restored
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
icles.* The later portion might be called the Book of Ezra, or perhaps
the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, because these two men, Ezra the
scribe and Nehemiah the governor, played important roles in the re-
establishment of the Temple and of the community.
In Jewish tradition, it was Ezra the scribe who wrote these books;
who was the man I have been referring to as the Chronicler. There
is no certainty about this, but, on the other hand, there is nothing
implausible about it either.
The Jewish scholars who placed the Bible in its final form toward
the end of the first century a.d. recognized that the Book of Ezra
and Nehemiah, like 1 and 2 Chronicles, could appear only in "the
Writings" because of its comparatively late date of composition. How-
ever, whereas 1 and 2 Chronicles duplicated, to a very large extent,
the early historical books of the Bible, Ezra and Nehemiah added new
material not present elsewhere. For that reason Ezra and Nehemiah
was more useful and was placed ahead of 1 and 2 Chronicles, even
though from the historical viewpoint it came afterward.
In order to make the historical connection clear despite this reversal
of chronology, the verses at the dividing line are duplicated. The first
three verses of Ezra are quoted virtually verbatim at the very end of
the last chapter of 2 Chronicles.
In the various versions of the Bible used by Christians, 1 and 2
Chronicles are placed not at the end of the Old Testament but im-
mediately after 1 and 2 Kings. Then, as an additional piece of logical
arrangement, the Book of Ezra appears not before but after 1 and 2
Chronicles, so that the Chronicler's history can be read as a unit,
with the only jog coming at the point where the verses ending 2
Chronicles are repeated at the beginning of Ezra. (The repetition is
retained.)
It eventually became customary to divide the final part of the Chron-
icler's history into two parts, the Book of Ezra, and the Book of
Nehemiah. In view of the belief that Ezra was the Chronicler and
wrote both books, and since he appears in both books, it is also
possible to call the books 1 Ezra and 2 Ezra. This is adhered to
in Catholic versions of the Bible, which, however, make use of the
Greek form of the name so that the books become 1 Esdras and 2
Esdras.
* These ate handled as two separate hooks only for convenience sake, as in the
case of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, with full recognition that actually
they form a single work.
434
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Cyrus, king of Persia
The Book of Ezra begins with the event that first initiated the
rebuilding of the Temple and dates it in the fashion of ancient times:
Ezra 1:1. Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia . . ■
In this way, the Chronicler skips lightly over a vast change that
had come over the political complexion of western Asia.
The Chaldeans, in defeating the Assyrians and taking Nineveh,
had been in alliance with the Medes, a people living to the north
of Assyria and south of the Caspian Sea— a region known as Media.
After the fall of Nineveh, the Chaldeans, ruling from Babylon, had
taken control of the entire Fertile Crescent, while the Medes extended
their rule over a vast stretch of land to the north and east.
The Median Empire was much the larger in area but it stretched
over barbaric areas of nomad tribes. The Chaldeans, on the other
hand, ruled the very cradle of civilization, a land of intensely irrigated,
agriculturally rich land, full of large and luxurious cities. Under Neb-
uchadnezzar, who came to the throne of Chaldea in 605 B.C., Babylon
was the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful city in the world and
was capital of its mightiest empire.
Nebuchadnezzar died in 561 b.c. after a most successful rule of
forty-four years, having survived the capture of Jerusalem by a full
quarter century. The monarchs who followed him were, however, much
weaker than he. His son Amel-Marduk (the Evil-merodach of the
Bible; see page 396) succeeded him but was dethroned by a con-
spiracy in 560 b.c. After several years of instability, Nabonidus, who
was not of the line of Nebuchadnezzar, ascended the throne in 556
b.c. He was a scholar rather than a soldier and left the rule of Babylon
to others while he involved himself in antiquarian studies.
Media, the one great power which might have taken advantage of
the weakness of the Babylonian kings, was not particularly warlike
either. In 593 b.c, while Nebuchadnezzar was still comparatively new
on the throne, Astyages became king of the Medes. He was still king
when Nebuchadnezzar died and his long reign was peaceful. It hap-
pened, however, that within a decade of Nebuchadnezzar's death, the
EZRA 43;
Median Empire was shaken by war and a new tribe became dominant.
This tribe had been living under Median rule in a district now
called Fars, which lies along the northern shores of the Persian Gulf.
To the ancient inhabitants of the land, it was Parsa, and to the Greeks,
Persis. It is from the last that we get our present words "Persia" and
"Persian."
The Persians were closely akin to the Medes, with similar language
and similar traditions, so that there was much confusion concerning
the two among foreigners. Sometimes they were spoken of as "the
Medes and the Persians." Sometimes, Jews and Greeks alike spoke of
"Medes" when they really meant "Persians."
About 600 B.C., there was born to one of the leading Persian families
a child they named Kurush. In Hebrew, this name became Koresh,
and in Greek, Kuros. The last, in Latin spelling, is Cyrus, and it is
by that name that we know him. Later, legends arose which made
Cyrus the grandson of Astyages, and stated that the Median king had
exposed the baby to certain death because an oracle had foretold
that he would be killed and replaced on the throne by the infant
once he had grown to manhood. Cyrus was suckled and kept alive
by a dog and then taken care of by a shepherd till he was grown.
This legend can be dismissed. Similar stories are told of the founders
of other nations — of Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, for
instance. Such a story has the ulterior purpose of serving to cast a
mantle of legitimacy over a usurper and making him seem the lawful
successor to the king he has replaced by force.
It is much more likely that Cyrus was exactly what he seemed: a
Persian leader who was no member of the royal line at all. He
rebelled against Astyages, and about 550 b.c. succeeded in placing
himself upon the throne. What had been the Median Empire was
now the Persian Empire.
Cyrus now entered upon a career of conquest. He took all of
Asia Minor and extended the borders of his kingdom to the shores
of the Aegean Sea. In 538 b.c. he took Babylon from its disorganized
rulers and all the Fertile Crescent was in his hands. To the Jews in
Babylon, this was the "first year of Cyrus king of Persia."
The Persian Empire, as put together by Cyrus, was the greatest
realm that western Asia had yet seen. It encompassed all the Asian
territory of Assyria, plus Asia Minor and large tracts to the east.
436
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jeremiah
Cyrus was completely unlike the conquerors who had flourished be-
fore him. He did not engage in wholesale killings and deportations.
Rather he chose to treat the conquered peoples gently, allowing them
their self-respect and even considerable home rule. The result was that
the Persian Empire was an administrative success as well as a territorial
one. It experienced revolts, to be sure, but it also enjoyed periods of
peace over wide areas. The moral, for conquerors, would seem to be
plain. The lighter the grip, the firmer the hold.
The Jews were one of the groups that benefited from Cyrus's policy.
The Persian king found a group of them making up a rather pros-
perous colony in Babylon and he offered to allow them to return:
Ezra 1:3. Who is there among you of all his [God's] people?
. . .let him go up to Jerusalem . . . and buUd the house of the
Lord . . .
The Chronicler points out that thus was fulfilled a prophecy of
Jeremiah, something that is mentioned briefly here but more fully at
the end of 2 Chronicles:
2 Chronicles 36:20. . . . they [the Jewish exiles] were servants
to him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his sons until the reign of Persia:
2 Chronicles 36:21. To fulfill the word of the Lord by . . . Jeremiah,
until the land . . . lay desolate . . . threescore and ten years.
The prophecy is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah, thus:
Jeremiah 29:10. For thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years
be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you . . . causing you to
return to this place.
And yet the period of exile was not seventy years. From the destruc-
tion of the Temple in 586 b.c. to Cyrus's proclamation in 538 b.c.
was a lapse of time of only forty-eight years.
Of course, Jeremiah and the Chronicler may not have thought of
seventy years as representing a precise length of time. (Ancient his-
torians were much less time conscious than we are.) Seventy years
may merely have meant the "lifetime of a man" to them.
ezra 437
On the other hand, the seventy years that were accomplished at
Babylon may refer to the duration of the Chaldean Empire, which
from the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to that of Cyrus lasted sixty-
seven years.
And again, the reference may be to the Temple itself rather than
to the people, as I shall explain later in the chapter.
Sheshbazzar
There was a quick response to Cyrus's edict:
Ezra 1:5. Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and
Benjamin, and the . . . Levites . . . to go up to build the house
of the Lord . . .
Ezra 1:6. And all they that were about them strengthened their
hands with . . . silver . . . gold . . . goods . . . beasts . . .
The specific mention of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi
makes it clear that only the exiles of the kingdom of Judah are in-
volved. The descendants of earlier exiles from the kingdom of Is-
rael, carried off by Sargon of Assyria, would still be somewhere in
the dominions of Cyrus and might conceivably have been included
in the edict. However, it was now nearly two centuries since the
Israelites had been carried off. By now, apparently, they had been
absorbed and had lost all consciousness of being Israelites.
Even the Jews in Babylon had assimilated themselves to an extent.
Not all went rushing back to Jerusalem. Some remained behind. The
fact that they donated objects of value to help those who were planning
to make the trip indicates that they were reasonably well-to-do and
might have seen no point in leaving a place where they were pros-
perous and secure and where by now they felt at home. (This is
precisely the situation in which modem American Jews find themselves.
Many are prosperous and secure and see no reason to leave their homes
and flock to Israel — though they are willing to make financial con-
tributions.)
Cyrus is described as also contributing to the returnees, ordering
that the various Temple furnishings, which had been carried off by
Nebuchadnezzar, be returned:
438
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Ezra 1:7. . . . Cyrus . . . brought forth the vessels of the house
of the Lord . . .
Ezra 1:8. Even those did Cyrus . . . bring forth by the hand
of Mithredath . . . and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince
of Judah.
Mithredath is an interesting name. It means "given by Mithra,"
one of the important Persian deities on the side of Ormuzd and
the forces of good (see page 409). A later version of the Persian
religion, built about Mithra as a sun symbol, was known as Mithraism
and, in the time of the Roman Empire, it vied with Christianity for
supremacy. The Greek version of the name Mithredath is Mithridates.
Rulers by this name reigned over the kingdoms of Parthia and of
Pontus in Roman times. In particular, Mithridates VI of Pontus (some-
times known as Mithradates the Great) fought Rome nearly to a
standstill in the first century b.c.
The name "Sheshbazzar" is a puzzle. Its meaning is unclear but it
is certainly a Babylonian name and not a Hebrew one. Yet it is
borne by someone who is "the prince of Judah." Presumably the Jews
exiled in Babylon tended to adopt Babylonian names just as American
Jews tend to adopt American names.
Since Sheshbazzar is "the prince of Judah," it is natural to look
for him among those of the Davidic line listed earlier by the Chron-
icler. The sons of Jeconiah, the exiled king of Judah, are there given:
1 Chronicles 3:17. . . . Salathiel his [Jeconiah's] son,
1 Chronicles 3:18. Malchiram also, and Pediah, and Shenazar . . .
It is very tempting to identify Shenazar (itself apparently a Baby-
lonian name) with Sheshbazzar. If so, Sheshbazzar would be the fourth
son of Jeconiah. If the three older sons were dead or incapacitated,
Sheshbazzar would be literally the prince of Judah, the legal king of
the land. It is even conceivable that the difference between Shenazar
and Sheshbazzar arises because the son of Jeconiah adopted the latter
as a throne name once his leadership of Judah was thus officially
recognized.
To be sure, Cyrus had no intention of restoring Judah as a political
kingdom, whether independent or tributary, but merely wished to
restore Jerusalem as the center of what seemed to him to be an un-
important cult.
ezra 439
Zerubbabel
Sheshbazzar led a party to Jerusalem and under him, apparently,
the work began:
Ezra 5:16. . . . Sheshbazzar . . . laid the foundation of the house
of God . . .
However, if so, he was apparently only a titular head, cast in the
role as (perhaps) the oldest living scion of the house of David and
therefore lending an air of sanctity and legitimacy to the project. As
the son of Jeconiah he must have been an old man at the time of
this first return, and a younger man would have taken over after
Shcshbazzar's ceremonial laying of the cornerstone, so to speak. Later
on, it is only this younger man who is mentioned;
Ezra 2:1. Now these are the children . . . that went up out of
the captivity . . .
Ezra 2:2. Which came with Zerubbabel . . .
Some suggest that Zerubbabel (also a Babylonian name, meaning
"child of Babylon") is simply another name for Sheshbazzar, but noth-
ing forces this assumption. Zerubbabel is a distinct individual also
mentioned among the descendants of Jeconiah:
1 Chronicles 3:19. And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel,
and Shimei.
Elsewhere, to be sure, he is listed as the son of another:
Ezra 5:2. Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel . . .
However, Shealtiel is commonly equated with Salathiel, listed in 1
Chronicles as Jeconiah's oldest son. In either case, Zerubbabel is the
nephew of Sheshbazzar, the grandson of Jeconiah, and therefore the
great-great-grandson of Josiah and the descendant, in the twentieth
generation, of David.
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jeshua
Eventually, an altar was built upon which sacrifices might be per-
formed:
Ezra 3:2. Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak . . . and
Zerubbabel . . . and builded the altar . . .
The name Jeshua is a form of the earlier Joshua, which is itself
a shortened form of Jehoshua. This form appears commonly in the
Chronicler's history, and it has special interest because it is this name
which, in the Creek form, is Jesus.
Jeshua is the son of Jozadak (Jehozadak), who is listed in the
sixth chapter of 1 Chronicles as the High Priest at the time of the
fall of the kingdom, the High Priest who went into Babylonian cap-
tivity (see page 406).
Now his son had returned to oEciate at the altar. Thus, not only
is the secular power unbroken in the line from Jeconiah to Sheshbazzai
to Zerubbabel; but the priestly power is unbroken, too, from Jehozadak
to Jeshua.
The Adversaries of Judah
But the returnees were not building the Temple in a vacuum.
There were people living in what had once been the kingdoms of
Israel and Judah. These included those who had never been exiled
in the first place. Sargon of Assyria carried off only a small portion
of the Israelites, and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon only a small portion
of the Judeans. In both cases, though, the exiles had been taken
from the upper classes— the administrators, landowners, artisans, schol-
ars, and intellectuals generally. Those who remained behind were the
peasants and the unlettered.
Then, too, the Assyrian kings had resettled Israel with outsiders and
these had undoubtedly intermarried with the remaining natives to form
the Samaritans (see page 380). After the exile from Judah, these
Samaritans had spread southward to take over parts of what had once
EZRA 44I
been northern Judah, while the Edomites moved northward from
their desert fastnesses into what had once been southern Judah.
The Jewish exiles in Babylon, on the other hand, had prospered
and had further developed Judaism. As compensation for the loss of
their land and freedom, they turned to that which alone distinguished
them clearly from their neighbors — their sacred writings. The various
traditions and law codes may have hardened and fused and the early
books of the Bible may have approached their final form during the
Exile. (It may be for this reason that so much of the first few chapters
of Genesis has a marked tinge of Babylonic myth about it— see page
40.)
Then, too, important prophets helped develop the ideas of Judaism
further, so that the Jews of Babylon had a religion advanced and
etherealized in many respects beyond that which was held traditionally
by the remaining inhabitants of Judah.
For these reasons the rebuilding of the Temple was bound to bring
trouble. To the people living in the land about Jerusalem, the returnees
were foreigners who came flooding into the land in a highhanded
fashion, with strange religious ways and haughty speech. To the re-
turnees, on the other hand, the people living on the land were strangers
and foreigners, occupying usurped space, and practicing a debased reli-
gion only superficially resembling Judaism.
The situation was precisely the same as that in the twentieth century
when Jews from Europe and America returned to an Israel they con-
sidered their ancestral home and found themselves face to face with
Arab dwellers who considered them strangers and intruders. The ap-
parently irreconcilable hostility of Israel and its Arab neighbors mirrors
the hostility of the Jews and Samaritans in Persian times and later.
Ezra 4:1. . . . the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin [the Sa-
maritans] . . .
Ezra 4:2. . . . came to Zerubbabel . . . and said ... let us buUd
with you . . .
Ezra 4:3 But Zerubbabel . . . said unto them, You have nothing
to do with us.
There is nothing at this point to indicate that the offer of the
Samaritans was insincere. Zerubbabel might have been more diplomatic,
but, like Rehoboam four centuries before (see page 338), he was
442 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
harsh and insulting, and the result was the same, enmity in place of
possible co-operation.
Darius I
The Samaritans could not oppose the Jews directly since both alike
were under the firm eye of the Persian kings. The Samaritans could,
however, try to influence those kings by pointing out the possible
dangers of allowing an exclusivistic religious group to come to power
in a place as strategically situated as Jerusalem.
Ezra 4:4. Then the people of the land weakened the hands of
the people of Judah, and troubled them in building,
Ezra 4:5. And hired counsellors against them to frustrate their
purpose all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign
of Darius king of Persia.
Cyrus died in 530 b.c, eight years after his edict allowing the Jews
to return to Jerusalem. Succeeding him was his son Cambyses, (Kam-
bujiya, in Persian) who had been ruling Babylon while his father was
off on his campaigns. In order to ensure his place on the throne,
Cambyses had his brother Smerdis executed. He then set out to con-
quer Egypt, the one portion of the Assyrian Empire which had not
yet been taken over by the conquering Persians.
In Egypt the 26th dynasty was still in power. Seventy years had
passed since Necho (against whom Josiah of Judah had fought) had
died and now the Pharaoh was Psamtik III. In 525 b.c. Cambyses
marched against him and won an easy victory. Psamtik III was over-
thrown and later executed, so that Saitic Egypt came to an end. For
over a century afterward, Persian kings were to rule as the 27th dy-
nasty.
Cambyses attempted to extend his African dominions even more,
with plans to attack Ethiopia to the south, or Carthage to the west,
but the deserts were too hostile and his line of communications too
long. Furthermore, a Zoroastrian priest, pretending to be Cambyses'
dead brother Smerdis, was proclaiming himself king back in Persia
and Cambyses had to hurry home. On the way back, in 521 B.C., he
died, whether through natural causes, or as a result of assassination
or suicide.
444
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
For some months thereafter, the usurper was in control of Persia,
but opposition to him centered about Darius (Darayavaush, in Persian)
who was a member of the younger branch of the Persian royal family.
Gathering other noblemen about himself, he attacked the usurper, de-
feated him, and made himself king.
Darius faced rebellions in his turn almost at once, but he put them
down with a sure hand and with great skill. He then proceeded to
reorganize the kingdom, dividing it up into provinces (satrapies), es-
tablishing good roads and canals, arranging for a sound monetary
system, and generally overseeing a strong and eEcient government.
He also continued Persian conquests. He extended Persian control
eastward over sections of northwestern India (the modem Pakistan)
and, about 512 b.c, led an army across the Hellespont into Thrace
(the region making up modem Bulgaria). It was the first time any
Asian monarch had led an army into Europe and he brought his
dominions up to the Danube River.
Darius is best remembered among Westerners for the events of the
last decade of his thirty-five-year-long reign. The Greek cities on the
Aegean coast of Asia Minor revolted in 500 b.c. and received help
from Athens. The revolt was crushed and Darius set about punishing
the Athenians. A Persian expeditionary force landed on Athenian ter-
ritory near the village of Marathon in 490 b.c. and there, in one
of the most famous battles of ancient times, was defeated. Darius died
in 486 b.c. with Athens still unpunished.
This last defeat was a very minor one as far as the Persian Empire
was concerned and should not be allowed to obscure the fact that
Darius's reign was essentially one of great achievements both abroad
and at home. Under him, Persia reached the peak of its power.
The short reign of Cambyses tends to be overshadowed by the
greater achievements of Cyrus who preceded him and Darius who
followed him, and the Book of Ezra moves straight from Cyrus to
Darius, slurring over Cambyses. Indeed, Cambyses is nowhere men-
tioned in the Bible.
Ahasuerus
Before going into details concerning the results of the intrigues
carried on by the Samaritans at the courts of Cyrus and Darius, the
ezra 445
Book of Ezra rounds off those intrigues by describing their continu-
ation into the following reigns:
Ezra 4:6. And in the reign of Ahasuerus . . . wrote they unto
him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
After the death of Darius I in 486 b.c, his son Xerxes succeeded
to the throne. Xerxes continued his father's plan of punishing the
Greeks. He had to pause first, though, to suppress a serious revolt in
Egypt and took several years; time used by the Greeks in desperate
preparation for the coming Persian assault.
Finally, a mighty Persian army invaded Greece and an equally mighty
Persian fleet (manned by Phoenicians, for the most part) swept the
Aegean. Xerxes' navy was defeated in 480 b.c. in the battle of Salamis
and his army was defeated on land the next year at Plataea. Xerxes
gave up the plan to conquer Greece and retired to a life of ease with
his harem.
The "Persian War" makes up the main body of the history of He-
rodotus, the first great history of Western tradition, and its events have
made up a drama almost without parallel in all the twenty-five hundred
years that have since elapsed. Those mighty events, however, cast
no ripple in Biblical affairs for they did not affect the Jews, and
no mention is made of them in the Bible.
It is generally accepted that Xerxes is the Ahasuerus referred to in
Ezra 4:6. The names do not seem similar but "Xerxes" is, after all,
only the Greek version of the king's name. To the Persians, Xerxes
was Khshayarsha. Place an "A" in front and the change to Ahasuerus
is not a difficult one to see.
Artaxerxes
The tale of Samaritan intrigues continues:
Ezra 4:7. And in the days of Artaxerxes . . .
In 465 b.c, Xerxes was assassinated in a court intrigue and his
son Artaxerxes I (Artakhshatra) succeeded. During Artaxerxes' forty-
year reign, the Persian Empire held its own. It kept off the Greeks,
not so much with armies as with money, encouraging them to fight
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
among themselves. Rebellions flared here and there in the vast Persian
dominions but they were easily put down and in the end Artaxerxes
died in peace in 424 b.c.
Aramaic
To be sure, by the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, it was not the
Temple that was in question; that had been completed in Darius's
reign, as will be explained later, and was a dead issue. Rather, it
was the fact that the Jews were also attempting to build walls about
Jerusalem that was now in question.
This could easily be interpreted as a rebellious act, since the Jews
might be planning to protect themselves by these walls against
the Persian army. The Samaritans therefore wrote to Artaxerxes, point-
ing out that the Jews had once controlled large sections of the Fertile
Crescent from Jerusalem and had a bad record as rebels against the
Assyrians and Babylonians who had preceded the Persians. And, as
the Bible says,
Ezra 4:7. . . . the letter was written in the Syrian tongue . . .
In fact, in the original version of the Book of Ezra, this letter is
quoted in Aramaic (Syrian).
Aramaic is a Semitic dialect, closely related to Hebrew but suf-
ficiently different so that a person understanding one would have
trouble understanding the other. The relationship is perhaps like that
of German to Dutch, or French to Spanish.
Aramaic was more widely spread than Hebrew. At the time of the
Exodus, the Aramaean tribes had drifted not only into Syria (Aram)
but into many of the regions of the Fertile Crescent, including Bab-
ylonia. It followed that knowledge of Aramaic came to be widespread
through the area. The Aramaeans prospered as merchants, traveled
widely, and their language became a kind of lingua franca, a language
in which most educated people could manage to make themselves
understood, even though one might not understand the native language
of the other.
Thus, at the time the Assyrians under Sennacherib were besieging
Jerusalem, Assyrian emissaries shouted propaganda messages in Hebrew
ezra 447
from outside the walls in order to dishearten the defenders. The Judean
emissaries, hoping to stop this, asked humbly:
2 Kings 18:26. . . . Speak, I pray thee . . .in the Syrian language;
for we understand it . . .
Both Assyrians and Judeans could meet on the common ground
of the Aramaic tongue.
Presumably, the Jews in Babylon found it easy to get along with
Aramaic until they learned Babylonian, so that Hebrew began to be
almost foreign to them (as it is to most Jews outside Israel today).
Furthermore, the mixed population in what had once been Israel and
Judah probably found themselves drifting to Aramaic.
For that reason certain books written late in Biblical times, sections
of the Book of Daniel in particular, were written in Aramaic. And
in New Testament times, Aramaic was the language of the Jewish peo-
ple generally. Thus, Jesus spoke in Aramaic rather than in Hebrew.
Asnapper
In the course of this letter in Aramaic, the original petitioners de-
scribe themselves by the cities they had inhabited before the Assyrian
resettlement of peoples. The list concludes:
Ezra 4:10. And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble
Asnapper brought oyer, and set in the cities of Samaria . . .
Clearly, Asnapper must refer to some important Assyrian monarch
who ruled after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. There were
four of these and the first three— Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon
—are mentioned by name in the Bible so that Asnapper is not likely
to be one of them. That leaves the fourth— Asshurbanipal (see page
390)— and it is generally accepted that this is who is meant by Asnap-
per.
Achmetha
With the record of Samaritan obstructionism through the century
following Cyrus's decree made clear, the story goes back to the first
448
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
decades of work. Apparently Samaritan hostility at the start had inter-
rupted work on the Temple itself:
Ezra 4:24. Then ceased the work of the house of God . . . unto
the second year of the reign of Darius . . .
The work was still in a state of suspended animation in 520 B.C.,
in other words, eighteen years after Cyrus's original edict. Under the
verbal lash of enthusiasts such as Haggai and Zechariah, work started
again:
Ezra 5:2. Then rose up Zerubbabel . . . and Jeshua . . . and
began to build the house of God . . .
But now there were new Persian governors over the area and some
question arose as to what structure was being erected and by what
right. The Jews referred to the edict under Cyrus, but Cyrus was
dead, as was his successor, and the confusion of a civil war had just
taken place. The matter had to be referred to Darius himself, and the
records were successfully searched:
Ezra 6:2. And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that
is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein was a record . . .
Achmetha is about 280 miles northeast of Babylon. Its name in
the language of its ancient inhabitants was Hangmatana, which be-
came Ecbatana to the Greeks and Hamadan to the modern inhabit-
ants. Hamadan is now part of modern Iran, 180 miles west of the
Iranian capital, Teheran, and possessing a population of over one
hundred thousand.
Ecbatana, to use its most familiar ancient name, had its greatest
political importance in the half century following the fall of Nineveh,
for it was then the capital of the Median Empire. Cyrus took it
in 550 b.c. and it lost its status as capital in favor of cities in Persia
itself. However, its location among the mountains made it a good
place for a summer residence so that it continued to serve as a kind
of subsidiary royal center.
Darius, having located the decree, confirmed it, and ordered his
local officials in Judea to hasten and encourage the building.
Ezra 6:15. And this house [the Temple] was finished ... in
the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.
ezra 449
Since Darius became king in 521 b.c. and that year counts as his
first, the Temple was completed in 516 b.c. just twenty-two years after
Cyrus's decree and just seventy years after the Temple had been
destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. It is certainly tempting to feel that the
seventy years of exile referred to by Jeremiah can be interpreted as
applying not to the physical exile of the Jews in Babylon so much as
to their spiritual exile from the Temple.
Sometimes the rebuilt Temple is called the "second Temple."
The first had endured from 923 to 586 b.c— a stretch of 337 years.
The second Temple was to do better. It was to endure 586 years
until its destruction by the Romans in aj). 70.
Ezra
There is now a lapse of at least half a century and Ezra appears
on the scene. The name is a shortened form of Azariah, a common
name carried by some two dozen people mentioned in the Bible,
including that king of Judah who is also known by the throne name
of Uzziah.
Ezra 7:6. . . . Ezra went up from Babylon . . .
Ezra 7:7. . . .in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.
If we assume that it is Artaxerxes I who is meant, he came to
the throne in 465 b.c. and his seventh year would be 439-58 b.c.
That would be the year, then, of Ezra's visit to Jerusalem.
If Ezra is considered the Chronicler, a point in favor is the fact
that on introducing himself he proudly gives his pedigree, tracing it
back to Aaron (but skipping a number of generations in doing so).
He also describes his function:
Ezra 7:6. . . .he [Ezra] was a ready scribe in the law of Moses . . .
A scribe is "one who writes," a secretary; and it was precisely during
the Exile that scribes became particularly important. The legal, the-
ological, and historical traditions of the Jews had to be reduced to
writing and prepared in many copies now that the people were scat-
tered; otherwise isolated groups would forget.
Ezra was one of the groups who copied and studied the books
450
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
and since these books contained the Jewish ritual law, he (and other
scribes, too) was the equivalent of what we might today call a lawyer.
There is an important difference between a prophet and a scribe.
A prophet speaks from inspiration and not only can, but often does,
break new ground. A scribe is bound to the letter and, in fact, has a
vested interest in the preservation of the letter since only by its exact
knowledge does he fulfill his function. There is for that reason a cer-
tain aridity about scribes, a certain lack of flexibility which, in periods
of stress and emergency, keeps them from moving with the times
and forces them into what may prove unpopular and even untenable
positions. In the New Testament, scribes are usually mentioned with
disapproval.
One difficulty arises concerning the date 458 b.c. given above as
the year of Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem. If Ezra is indeed the Chron-
icler then it might seem he would have to be alive at least as late
as 400 b.c. since some of the genealogies in 1 Chronicles stretch that
far. Yet Ezra had already obtained a reputation by the time of his
visit to Jerusalem and could not have been a young man. If mature in
in 458 b.c, could he still be alive in 400 b.c?
It is possible, of course, that he might have written the history be-
fore 400 b.c. and that a disciple added the verses required to bring
it up to date, so to speak. On the other hand, Ezra may have come
to Jerusalem considerably later than 458 b.c.
Artaxerxes I was not the only king of his name to rule over Persia.
After the death of Artaxerxes I in 424 b.c, one of his sons ruled under
the name of Xerxes II and then another as Darius II. In 404 b.c,
Darius II died, and his son, Artaxerxes II, came to the throne. If it
is this second Artaxerxes to whom Ezra refers in 7:7, then Ezra came
to Jerusalem in 398 b.c
Unfortunately, there is no easy way of determining from the Biblical
account which Artaxerxes is meant and of deciding whether Ezra ar-
rived in 458 or 398 b.c
Hattush
One possible hint lies with one of the heads of the families that are
described as coming to Jerusalem with Ezra:
Ezra 8:2. . . . of the sons of David; Hattush.
EZRA 451
Hattush is listed in the Davidic genealogy in the third chapter of
1 Chronicles:
1 Chronicles 3:19. . . . and the sons of Zerubbabel; MeshuUam
and Hananiah . . .
• • • •
1 Chronicles 3:21. And the sons of Hananiah . . . Shechaniah.
1 Chronicles 3:22. And the sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah; and
the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush . . .
Hattush was thus the great-great-grandson of Zerubbabel, and a mem-
ber of the twenty-fourth generation after David.
According to the Anchor Bible, Hattush's younger brother Neariah
has an estimated birth year of 470 b.c. (see page 405). We might
suppose then that Hattush was bom in 475 b.c. If, then, Ezra had
come to Jerusalem in 458 b.c, Hattush would have been seventeen
years old; a fine age for the trip, but would he then be considered
among those described by Ezra as:
Ezra 8:1. These are now the chief of their fathers . . .
or, to use the phraseology of the Revised Standard Version, "These
are the heads of their fathers' houses . . ."?
Surely a seventeen-year-old boy would scarcely be the head of the
house of David. There would very likely be older members to serve that
function.
Yet if Ezra had come to Jerusalem in 398 B.C., Hattush would be
seventy-seven years old and would make a good patriarchal head of
the royal house, but is it likely that a man of that age would decide
to make the arduous trip to Jerusalem?
So one still stands irresolute as to which of the two dates to choose.
Regardless of the date, though, the line of David had lost its political
significance. Even the nominal sovereignty of a Sheshbazzar or a Zerub-
babel was gone. The Jewish community was become a theocracy and
when Ezra arrived it was he, the scribe, and not Hattush, the prince,
who was in charge.
He found that in the time that had elapsed since the rebuilding
of the Temple, there had been much intermarrying between the re-
turnees and those who had been in the land all along. Horrified,
Ezra demanded and enforced the end of such marriages and the
ejection of foreign wives and their children from the community.
452
ASIMOV's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
This was thought of at the time as the only sure way in which
Judaism could be preserved in pure form. Intermarriage was bound
to be followed by a dilution of social custom and a distortion of
ritual, it seemed. This may be so, in fact, but to those of us who
now live in a pluralistic society and try to measure up to its ideals,
Ezra's policy seems inhumane, narrow, and wrong. That there were
those among the Jews themselves who also thought so, is evidenced
by the fact that at about this time the beautiful little Book of Ruth
was written (see page 265) and proved so popular that it was included
in the Hebrew Bible despite the fact that its heroine was a Moabitess.
16. NEHEMIAH
SHUSHAN • SANBAIXAT THE HORONTTE • ELIASHTB • ASHDODITES • EZRA •
1 ESDRAS
Shushan
The events of the next book also deal with the period of the
restoration of the Temple and it begins at once with the identity of
the chief character:
Nehemiah 1:1. The words of Nehemiah . . .
from which the name of the book is derived. Much of the book con-
sists of the memoirs of Nehemiah, presumably quoted and edited into
a larger whole by the Chronicler (or Ezra, if that be he).
The date of the beginning of the events of the book is also given;
twice, in fact:
Nehemiah 1:2. ... in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan
the palace . . »
and, again:
Nehemiah 2:1. . . . in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the
king . . .
If the king is Artaxerxes I, then his twentieth year is 446-45 b.c;
if Artaxerxes II, it is 385-84 b.c. The second date is too late if we
are to accept the fact that the Chronicler was writing in 400 b.c.
Therefore we can place ourselves in the year 445 b.o, some seventy
years after the completion of the second Temple.
454 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jerusalem at the Time of Nehemiah
Nehemiah held an honorable post as cupbearer to the Persian king,
which gave him the chance to talk to him personally:
Nehemiah 2:1. ... I took up the wine, and gave it unto the
king . . .
and such conversations could, apparently, take place in the presence
of the queen:
Nehemiah 2:6. And the king said unto me, (the queen also
sitting by him) . . .
Personal service in the presence of the queen would seem to mean,
in an eastern court of the time, that Nehemiah was a eunuch. The
Bible does not, however, make that clear.
Shushan, the scene in which wc first find Nehemiah, is better known
to us by the Greek version of its name, Susa. Susa is far more ancient
than the Persian kingdom, since it was in its earliest history the
capital of the kingdom of Elam, which lay northeast of Babylonia
and northwest of Fars, the Persian homeland.
NEHEMIAH
455
Elam was a rival of Babylonia even before the time of Abraham.
It was conquered by Sargon of Agade (see page 50) and by Ham-
murabi (see page 69). When Babylon was weak, however, Elam had
occasional periods of domination. Chedorlaomer (see page 68) was
a king of Elam, for instance.
The most dramatic period of Elam's history, however, came in the
time of Assyrian domination. Just as Egypt sought to save itself from
Assyria by encouraging revolts against that land in Judah, Israel, and
Syria, so Elam encouraged revolts in Babylon. Merodach-baladan (see
page 387) managed to maintain himself against Assyria only with
Elamite support. It was probably only because Assyria had its hands
continually full with Elam that Judah managed to hang on to a
nominal independence and survive to see Assyria destroyed.
Elam did not have Judah's good fortune, however. It did not survive.
It fought Assyria in campaign after campaign for a century, coming
back after defeat, always resolute, always defiant. It is a great epic
of its sort, but because there is no Elamite literature that survives
today that can compare with the historical books of the Bible, or with
the writings of the Greeks, the Elamite struggle is carried on in sound-
less darkness and is all but vanished from modem consciousness.
Finally, in 640 b.c, after several campaigns by Asshurbanipal, Elam was
utterly destroyed and devastated and Susa was razed to the ground.
The best of what remained of the Elamite population was deported
and some of them must have been added to the Samaritans for
among the people represented by the letter to Artaxerxes (see page
446) are:
Ezra 4:9. .. . the Susanchites . . . and the Elamites,
Ezra 4:10. . . . whom . . . Asnapper brought over, and set in the
cities of Samaria ■ . .
Here is the additional reason for considering Asnapper to be As-
shurbanipal.
Elam played no further role in history but it had its posthumous
revenge. The effort to crush Elam cost the last bit of strength Assyria
could muster. It was exhausted and within a generation it fell before
the combined might of the Chaldeans and the Medes, and was wiped
out every bit as thoroughly as Elam had been.
Meanwhile, the Persians were able to expand northwestward from
Fars into Elam, thereafter generally called Susiana, and make it an
456
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
integral part of Persia. Susa was rebuilt by Darius I and made into
the winter capital of the empire. Its site (in what is now southwestern
Iran) is marked only by ruins and by a little village named Shush.
Sanballat the Horonite
At the time that the Book of Nehemiah opens, a party of Jews
had arrived in Susa. Their business is not described but one can
reasonably speculate that it might have been in connection with the
letter to Artaxerxes sent by the Samaritans. The Jews of Jerusalem
feared its consequences and might well have sent a deputation to
Artaxerxes to present their own case. In doing so, they would have
approached Nehemiah, as a Jew who had access to the ear of the king.
They informed Nehemiah that conditions in Jerusalem were bad and
that the walls about the city had been destroyed, presumably by
Samaritan enemies supported by the local Persian officials.
After several months, Nehemiah succeeded in approaching Artaxerxes
and in persuading him to grant permission for the walls to be built
and for Nehemiah to travel to Jerusalem to oversee the matter. Ac-
cording to the later Jewish historian Josephus, Nehemiah did not ar-
rive in Jerusalem till 440 b.c.
In Jerusalem, Nehemiah faced opposition from the local governors.
After he had surveyed the state of the walls, he proposed an immediate
drive to rebuild them:
Nehemiah 2:19. But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah
. . . the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they . . .
said . . . will ye rebel against the king?
Sanballat bears a Babylonian name (Sin-uballit, which means "Sin
[the moon-goddess] has given life"). This does not necessarily mean
that he was a moon-goddess worshiper, since he may just have been
using a popular name of the period, just as a modem American might
have Hannibal as a first name without any intention of showing him-
self to be a worshiper of the Carthaginian Baal. As a Horonite,
Sanballat was a native of Beth-horon, a town ten miles northwest
of Jerusalem. Presumably he was a Samaritan and perhaps even the
local governor of Samaria.
NEHEMIAH
457
Tobiah has a Hebrew name and is described, later in the book,
as being connected to various Jews by marriage. He is called an Am-
monite probably because he was the local governor of districts in
the Trans-Jordan. It is quite likely that he was a Yahvist but was
certainly not an orthodox Jew as orthodoxy was then viewed. Either
he was a Samaritan, or a Jew who was in sympathy with the Sa-
maritans.
Gesliem the Arabian apparently was a Nabataean, a member of an
Arabic tribe that now appears on the Biblical horizon. After the de-
struction of the kingdom of Judah, the Edomites moved northward
into Judah and behind them came the Nabataeans, who occupied
what had previously been Edom. Their capital was established at
Petra, a city which had elaborate house and temple fronts carved out
of the pink cliffside. It attained prosperity because it was an important
crossing point for various trade routes. Its site is often equated with
the Edomite city of Selah, which is mentioned in the Bible in con-
nection with Amaziah's reconquest of Edom (see page 369):
2 Kings 14:7. He [Amaziah] . . . took Selah by war . . .
In the third century B.C. the Nabataeans were to form a prosperous
kingdom. At the time the Romans were crushing the Jewish rebellion
in a.d. 68, they also annexed the Nabataean kingdom. It became
the province of Arabia Petraea. Nearly two centuries later, the province
even gave an emperor to Rome, Philip "the Arabian."
Eliashib
The building of the walls began, with the High Priest initiating
the proceedings:
Nehemiah 3:1. Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his
. . . priests, and they builded the sheep gate . . .
Eliashib continues the line of priests descending from Zadok, the
High Priest under Solomon, for he is the grandson of Jeshua who
returned with Zerubbabel (see page 440):
Nehemiah 12:10. And Jeshua begat Joiakim, Joiakim also begat
Eliashib . . .
458
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The walls as built enclosed a tiny city indeed; the "city of David"
in the south (that is, the rocky heights of Zion on which David had
built his palace six centuries before) and the Temple and its environs
to the north. The entire enclosure may have been seven modern city
blocks long and an average of two city blocks wide.
Ashdodites
The Samaritans and other surrounding nations, annoyed at the prog-
ress of the wall, were prepared to take mob action against it.
In a very real sense, the little Judean enclave at Jerusalem was
surrounded. There were Samaritans under Sanballat to the north; the
Trans-Jordanian tribes under Tobiah to the east, and the Nabataeans
under Geshem to the south. To complete the circle there was also
an enemy to the west:
Nehemiah 4:7. . . . the Arabians, and the Ammonites, and the
Ashdodites . . , were very wroth.
The Ashdodites refer, in a narrow sense, to the inhabitants of the
Philistine city of Ashdod (see page 221). The phrase has come to
mean more than that in post-Exilic times.
The Philistines had been subdued by David and had formed part
of the united kingdom Erst and then, later, of the kingdom of Judah,
but they had continued to maintain their cultural identity. At various
times they rebelled but under Uzziah they were reduced to submission
again:
2 Chronicles 26:6. And he [Uzziah] . . . warred against the Phi-
listines, and brake down the wall of Gath . . . and the wall of
Ashdod . . .
However, the Philistines suffered with Judah in the days of Assyrian
ascendance, for in 711 B.C.:
Isaiah 20:1. . . . Sargon the king of Assyria . . . fought against
Ashdod and took it.
The Assyrian governor who thenceforth ruled Philistine territory had
his seat at Ashdod. The term "Ashdodite" came, therefore, to mean
the Philistines generally, so that Nehemiah was facing the Philistines as
seven centuries before Samson had faced them.
NEHEMIAH
459
Nehemiah's answer was a resolute defense. Half the Jews built the
walls and half patrolled the environs of the city, armed and ready for
war. The builders themselves wore swords and the atmosphere was very
much like that in the frontier villages of modern Israel, where fanners
plow their fields with rifles strapped to their backs.
Presumably, the Samaritans were not ready to make actual war. That
would get them in trouble with Persia since Nehemiah had the royal
permission for the work. Since Nehemiah refused to be thwarted by
the mere war of nerves involved in continuing threats and menacing
scowls, the raising of the walls continued and, according to Josephus,
they were completed in 437 b.c.
Nehemiah also labored to solve the economic difficulties of the tiny
community and mentions a date still later, for at one point he says:
Nehemiah 6:14. . . . from the time that I was appointed . . .
governor . . . from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirti-
eth year of Artaxerxes . . .
You might think that this ought to settle which of the Artaxerxes
Nehemiah worked under since surely both would not have reigned for
the comparatively long time of thirty-two years. However, through a
coincidence, Artaxerxes I reigned forty-one years and Artaxerxes II
reigned forty-six years. If, however, we still consider the king to have
been Artaxerxes I, the year that Nehemiah now mentions as the thirty-
second of the king is 433 B.C.
Ezra
Chapters 8, 9, and 10 of Nehemiah suddenly return to Ezra, who is
described as reading to the population of Jerusalem out of the sacred
writings:
Nehemiah 8:1. And all the people gathered themselves together
. . . and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the
law of Moses . . .
Nehemiah 8:2. And Ezra . . . brought the law before the congre-
gation . . .
Nehemiah 8:3. And he read therein . . . before the men and the
women . . .
460
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Ezra then led a religious reform which was different from all those
that had preceded. Now there was no longer merely the spoken word
of a prophet, or even just the book found in the Temple in Josiah's
time (which may have possessed only dubious authority in the eyes of
many of the men of the time). There was now the whole body of
the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, written, expounded, and
interpreted by the scribes so that all men might now study, under-
stand, and observe the very letter of the law.
The presence of the written law (to which the prophetic books and
the "Writings" were later added to form the Bible) made it impossible
for the Jews ever again to waver from Judaism. The Jews kept the faith
thereafter, through exiles far more widespread, prolonged, and inhu-
manly cruel than that visited upon them by Nebuchadnezzar.
This episode of the reading of the law brings up once again the
problem of the chronology of Ezra. Ezra appears in two places; first at
the end of the Book of Ezra, where he breaks up the mixed marriages,
and second at the end of the Book of Nehemiah, where he leads the
religious reform. It would seem that these two sections belong together;
that the breakup of the mixed marriages ought to be followed at once
by the religious reform and that the interposition of the Nehemiah
chapters is artificial.
The question then is whether the Ezra story, as a whole, comes
before Nehemiah or after Nehemiah, and this again depends on which
Artaxerxes is referred to in Ezra 7:7 (see page 449). If Nehemiah's work
in Jerusalem took place from 445 to 433 B.C., then Ezra's work comes
first if he really came to Jerusalem in 458 B.C. in the seventh year of
Artaxerxes I. It comes afterward, on the other hand, if he came to
Jerusalem in 398 b.c. in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II.
One additional verse can now be called upon to help make the
decision. When Ezra arrived in Jerusalem and was shocked to discover
the prevalence of mixed marriages:
Ezra 10:6. Then Ezra rose up . . . and went into the chamber
of Johanan the son of Eliashib: and . . . did eat no bread, nor drink
water: for he mourned . . .
Is it possible that the Eliashib mentioned here is the Eliashib who
was High Priest in Nehemiah's time (see pag 457)? Eliashib did have
a son or grandson named Johanan:
NEHEMIAH 46 1
Nehemiah 12:22. The Levites in the days of Eliashib, joiada, and
Johanan . . .
What's more, Johanan did serve as High Priest. The Jewish colony in
Elephantine, a city in upper Egypt, addressed letters to him dated 408
b.c. and he is further mentioned in Josephus.
If the Johanan of Ezra 10:6 is this Johanan, it would be very strong
evidence in favor of Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem in 398 B.C. in the sev-
enth year of Artaxerxes II.
And yet not all doubt is removed. Neither Johanan nor Eliashib is
described here as a High Priest or even as a priest and it is possible
(though perhaps not likely) that Ezra's host for the night was just an
ordinary individual with the increasingly common name of Johanan.
1 Esdras
The tale told by the Chronicler concerning the destruction and re-
building of the Temple is told over again in another book, also attrib-
uted to Ezra. This one is considered apocryphal, however, and to dis-
tinguish it from the canonical Book of Ezra, use is made of the
Greek equivalent of the name and it is called 1 Esdras (for there is
another apocryphal book called 2 Esdras). To those who adhere to
the Catholic system of referring to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah
as 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, the apocryphal books are 3 Esdras and 4
Esdras.
Both 1 and 2 Esdras were included in some Greek versions of the
Bible. At the Council of Trent in 1546, however, the Catholic Church
decided officially which books it would consider canonical and these
did not include the Prayer of Manasses (see page 42;) or either of the
Esdras books. These are apocryphal to Catholics as well as to Jews and
Protestants.
1 Esdras was written no earlier than 150 b.c. and perhaps considerably
later (though not later than a.d. 50 since Josephus refers to it). In
general, 1 Esdras deviates from Ezra-Nehemiah only in unimportant
details and its chief point of interest lies in the retelling of an old fa-
ble.
The fable is told as taking place in the reign of Darius, who, after
a feast, retired to sleep. Three of his bodyguard pass the time by each
462
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
stating what he thinks is the strongest. The first chooses wine, the sec-
ond the king, and the third, women.
(In the original tale, it would have made more sense if the first chose
the king— the obvious choice— the second wine, and the third women.
The second can then point out that even the king succumbs to wine,
and the third that even the king respects his mother and loves his wife.
Both second and third are correct but since the third would undoubt-
edly please the women of the court he would be the sure winner.)
In 1 Esdras, the story is modified to suit the writer's purposes. The
third guardsman chooses more than merely women:
a Esdras 3:12. The third wrote, Women are strongest: but
above all things Truth beareth away the victory.
Darius is told of the contest, is amused, and demands that each
guardsman defend his point of view before the open court. The first
and second speak in favor of wine and the king. Then the third guards-
man is, for the first time, identified:
1 Esdras 4:13. Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of
the truth, (this was Zorobabel) began to speak.
(Since the apocryphal books appear in the Greek and not in the
Hebrew, proper names are given closer to the Greek than the Hebrew
forms in the King James Version— unlike the situation in connection
with the canonical books. Hence we have Zorobabel rather than Zerub-
babel.)
Zerubbabel speaks of women, as in the old fable, but then launches
into an impressive encomium on truth, ending:
1 Esdras 4:40. . . . Blessed be the God of truth.
1 Esdras 4:41. . . . And all the people then shouted, and said,
Great is Truth, and mighty above all things.
Since Zerubbabel had won, Darius offered to grant him whatever he
might wish, and Zerubbabel immediately asked him to confirm Cyrus's
decree that the Temple be rebuilt. Thus, this fable is tied in with Jew-
ish history.
It is unlikely in the extreme that anything like this ever happened,
but it is a pretty story.
17. ESTHER
AHASUERUS • INDIA • VASHTI " MORDECAI • HAMAN • PUR • ZERESH • THE
REST OF ESTHER
Ahasuerm
Following the historical books comes what can only be described
as a piece of historical fiction, the Book of Esther.
Esther does not have the gentle charm of the Book of Ruth, the
earlier book that seems to have fictional elements. It is, instead, a savage
book. The Book of Esther is, in fact, the one book of the Bible in which
the word "God" does not occur.
Esther may have been written as late as 1 30 b.c. and it breathes the
air of nationalism one would expect of that period in which the Jews
were finally living in an independent kingdom again after having under-
gone a period of savage persecution. It is probably the chauvinistic
nationalism of the book that made it so popular among Jews as to force
its inclusion in the Biblical canon.
The book begins by placing itself in time.
Esther 1:1. Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus . . .
Ahasuerus is usually identified with Xerxes I (see page 445), who
reigned from 486 to 465 b.c. At this period the Persian Empire was
still apparently at the peak of its power, as it had been under Darius,
but the downhill slide was already beginning. Xerxes is best known to
history in connection with his great expedition against Greece, which
failed so miserably.
ESTHER 465
India
A good indication of the late date of publication of the book is the
fact that it is not enough to mention Ahasuerus. The monarch must be
identified:
Esther 1:1. . . . (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even
unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)
This describes, accurately enough, the wide extent of the territory of
the Persian Empire at its height. The verse is also remarkable for being
the one place (except for a similar expression in another verse later in
this same book) where India is mentioned in the Bible.
Nor can there be any doubt that the Hebrew word used in this place,
"Hoddu," can mean anything but India. Not only did Ahasuerus
(Xerxes) actually rule from Ethiopia to India, but the words "Hoddu"
and "India" come from the same source.
Indian civilization dates far back indeed; farther back than modem
archaeologists suspected early in this century. Since 1920, ruins along
the Indus River have been excavated, yielding traces of unexpectedly
large and well-planned cities near the sites of villages now known as
Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro; cities that might date as far back as
3300 b.c. This Indus civilization was one of the three ancient ones of
the dawn of city building, for it was contemporaneous with the Sume-
rian culture (see page 30) and with the Egyptian Old Kingdom (see
Page 63).
About 1200 b.c, the Indus valley was invaded by people whom we
call "Aryans." They spoke an early form of the Indo-European group
of languages, Sanskrit, so that one sometimes speaks of that group as
the "Aryan languages." They came from what is now called Iran, the
nation which lies to the west of the Indus valley. Indeed, Iran (and
Iraq, too) are forms of the word "Aryan."
Aryan invasion came in the era in which there were vast movements
of peoples everywhere, and it was part of the same unsettlement that
brought the Philistines and Hebrews into Canaan.
What the name of the Indus River was before the Aryans came, we
don't know. The Aryans, however, called it "Sindhu," which, in San-
skrit, simply means "river." The name was applied to the region
466
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
traversed by the river and the area about the mouth of the river is still
called "Sind."
Persia invaded the region of the Indus about 500 b.c. in the reign
of Darius I. In Persian, Sind became "Hind" or "Hindu." The name
gradually spread from the Indus valley through all the vast subconti-
nent, which became "Hindustan" ("the land of Hind"). We still
speak of the natives as "Hindus," their religion as "Hinduism," and
their chief language as "Hindi."
The Jews adopted the Persian word with a little distortion and
"Hindu" became "Hoddu."
The Greeks also adopted the Persian word with a different sort of
distortion and "Hindu" became "Indos." From this comes the English
version of "Indus" for the river and "India" for the subcontinent, these
being the Latin forms.
Ironically enough, in 1947, when the Indian subcontinent achieved
independence, it was broken into two nations, and the area about the
Indus River, the original India, lost the name and is now called Paki-
stan. It is the rest of the region that is called India.
Only from the time of Darius, to shortly after the death of Alexan-
der the Great— 500 to 300 b.c— were the Indus valley and the Jordan
valley under the control of a single political system. Before that period
India was beyond the Biblical horizon and after that period it receded
again (though never completely) until a.d. 1500, when Western
civilization again impinged upon it, this time permanently.
Vashti
The tale of the Book of Esther begins in the third year of the reign
of Ahasuerus (484 b.c.) with a tremendously elaborate feast in Shushan,
a feast lasting half a year. (This was at a time when the real Xerxes had
just crushed a rebellion in Egypt and another in Babylon, and was
preparing a tremendous army for the ill-fated invasion of Greece.) At
the end of the great feast, a more intimate, week-long feast for the
officials of the kingdom was initiated.
Esther 1:9. A&o Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in
the royal house . . .
ESTHER 467
Vashti is unknown to history and, indeed, goes unmentioned in the
Bible outside the Book of Esther. Xerxes' real wife during the early
portion of his reign was Amestris, the daughter of a Persian general, if
we go by Herodotus.
Yet Vashti is not a purely made-up name. It has a definite source,
the same source from which the names of all the chief characters of the
book (aside from Ahasuerus) are drawn. This source is simply Babylo-
nian mythology. Vashti is the name of an Elamite goddess.
Mordead
Toward the end of this final feast, when Ahasuerus was quite drunk,
he ordered Vashti to come to him in order that he might display her
beauty. Vashti refused this indignity and Ahasuerus, in a fit of anger,
had her deposed as queen. He then ordered that beautiful women
be gathered together in order that out of them he might pick another
queen.
Esther 2:5. Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew,
whose name was Mordecai . . .
Esther 2:6. Who had been carried away from Jerusalem . . . with
Jeconiah . . . whom Nebuchadnezzar . . . had carried away.
Esther 2:7. And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his
uncle's daughter . . .
Mordecai is here described as having been carried off with Jeconiah
(Jehoiachin; see page 395), an event that took place in 597 B.C., and
as still being alive in 484 b.c. This would imply that Mordecai, and
Esther too, were centenarians at the time of this tale. This indicates the
author of the book, who is living three and a half centuries after the
events he describes, is nof following ancient records but is inventing
things and is uncertain of his chronology.
The name Mordecai is not Hebrew and, instead, seems to be suspi-
ciously like that of the chief god of the Babylonians, Marduk, which, in
its Hebrew form, is Merodach. As for Esther (the official throne name
that came to be carried by Mordecai's cousin), that is even more
clearly a form of Ishtar, the chief Babylonian goddess. Indeed, the
Aramaic version of that goddess's name is indeed Esther. The name
Hadassah, by which Esther was originally known within the family, is
468
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
closely related to a Babylonian word for "bride," which is used as a title
for Ishtar. And in Babylonian mythology Marduk and Ishtar are cous-
ins, as are Mordecai and Esther in the Book of Esther.
It is very tempting to suppose that the writer of Esther is adapting
Babylonian mythology into a supposedly historical tale designed to
please the ears of his readers.
Be that as it may, the tale goes on to relate that Esther was included
among the maidens brought to Ahasuerus and that he preferred her
to the others and made her his queen.
Esther 2:16. So Esther was taken unto king Ahasuerus . . .in the
seventh year of his reign.
Esther 2:17. And the king . . . made her queen instead of Vashti.
According to this tale, then, Esther became queen in 480 B.C., the
year of the battle of Salami's. To be sure, the name Esther is rather like
the name of Xerxes' queen, Amestris, but there is nothing about the
known facts concerning Amestris that in any way resembles what is
told in this book concerning Esther.
At the advice of her cousin Mordecai, Esther does not tell the king
that she is Jewish, but Mordecai remains in clandestine touch with her.
This turns out to be useful for when Mordecai learns of a palace in-
trigue against Ahasuerus, he informs Esther, who, in turn, warns the
king. The intriguers are hanged and Mordecai is officially commended
in the records.
Haman
Now the chief villain appears:
Esther 3:1. After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman
the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him . . . above
all the princes . . .
Haman is made the equivalent of prime minister, in other words. As
prime minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), one would expect that the
Greeks would have heard of him. He is not to be found in Herodotus,
however, or in any of the other Greek historians, nor is anyone to be
found with any similar name.
ESTHER
On the other hand, the chief male deity of the Elamites was named
Hamman.
This introduces an interesting speculation. In the centuries before
the establishment of the Persian Empire, Elam was at intermittent war
with whichever nation ruled the Tigris-Euphrates region to the north-
west. The final round in the struggle came under Asshurbanipal, when
the Assyrians once and for all destroyed Elam (see page 455).
In a sense then, Babylonia replaced Elam in the city of Susa during
the final decades of the Assyrian Empire; and according to the thinking
of the time, the Babylonian gods replaced the Elamite gods. The chief
Babylonian god, Marduk, replaced the chief Elamite god, Hamman,
and the chief Babylonian goddess, Ishtar, replaced the Elamite goddess,
Vashti. This is similar to the events in the Book of Esther, in which
Esther replaces Vashti as queen in Shushan (Susa), and, as is recounted
later in the book, Mordecai replaces Haman as prime minister.
Haman is identified as the son of an "Agagite." There is no mention
of this tribe in secular history or, indeed, anywhere in the Bible outside
this book. However, Agag is the name given in the Bible to the king
of the Amalekites who was captured by Saul and killed by Samuel.
1 Samuel 15:32. Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the
king of the Amalekites . . .
1 Samuel 15:33. . . . And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces . . .
It is to be assumed, then, that Haman is being described as an
Amalekite.
This would have special significance to the readers of the book for
the Amalekites were considered prototypes of the enemies of Israel;
and with the Amalekites the Bible predicted nothing but unrelenting
war. It seemed reasonable that a remaining individual of that anti-
Jewish tribe would now set himself about destroying the Jews.
Furthermore, Mordecai's ancestry was described upon his introduc-
tion:
Esther 2:5. .. . Mordecai, the son of ]air, the son of Shimei, the
son of Kish, a Benjamite.
He was of the tribe of Saul then, and possibly even a descendant of
Saul, who had once defeated and captured the ancestor of Haman.
Thus, the conflict in the Book of Esther would echo the conflict in the
First Book of Samuel.
47°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Pur
Hainan's hatred of the Jews is goaded on by the fact that Mordecai
refused to bow before him when all others showed him the respect
due a prime minister. The reason for Mordecai's refusal is not given
but the usual explanation is that he was unwilling to give to a mere
human the kind of reverence due only to God.
Haman is then depicted as turning to some ritualistic device for
determining a fortunate day for the forthcoming massacre of the Jews.
Esther 3:7. ... in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast
Pur, that is, the lot . . .
In other words, the writer of the Book of Esther equates "Pur"
("Purim" in the plural) with lots, possibly like the Urim and Thum-
mim (see page 150) used in ancient Yahvistic rituals. Later on, the
events recounted in this book are made the occasion for a commemora-
tive feast which the author names Purim because of this. This feast is
still celebrated by Jews to this day.
Actually, it is quite uncertain that Purim really means "lots," or what
the origin of the festival might be.
There are suggestions that Purim might actually be a Babylonian
spring festival which involved some mythic tale of the seasons involving
Marduk and Ishtar. This festival was adopted by the Jews in Babylon,
just as Jews in America are unable to resist the gigantic social pres-
sure of the season and adopt the secular aspects of the Christmas cele-
brations. It may have been one of the purposes of the writer of the
Book of Esther to revise the Babylonian myth into Jewish history and
convert a pagan festival into a patriotic Jewish observance.
Having established the day of reckoning (which turns out to be
nearly a year in the future), Haman persuades Ahasuerus to give him
carte blanche to destroy the Jews, who, Haman assures the king, do
not consider themselves bound by the king's laws and are therefore
rebels. Ahasuerus allows Haman his way.
ESTHER
47 1
Zereth
Mordccai at once appeals to Esther to use her influence with the king
to nullify the decree. Esther begins by requesting that Ahasuerus and
Haman attend a banquet she will give. They agree and Haman in
particular is in high spirits at this mark of royal favor.
Yet on seeing Mordecai, who still refuses to bow to him, he is en-
raged and frustrated. When he returns home, he recounts all his good
fortune to his wife and family but admits that it all means nothing as
long as Mordecai lives.
Esther 5:14. Then said Zeresh his wife ... Let a gallows be
made . . . that Mordecai may be hanged thereon: then go thou . . .
unto the banquet . . .
Now in Elamite mythology, the chief god, Hamman, has as his wife
the goddess Kirisha. This is suspiciously similar to Zeresh and is another
point in favor of the mythological inspiration of this book.
The night before the banquet, the king, sleepless, has the records read
to him and learns of Mordecai's part in frustrating the palace plot. He
therefore calls in Haman to ask his advice on the method of honoring
a man who deserved great gratitude from the king. Haman, feeling
it is himself who is in question, describes an elaborate ceremony which
is then, to Hainan's infinite disgust, applied to Mordecai.
Then, at the banquet, Esther reveals herself to be Jewish and de-
mands the life of Haman. Ahasuerus grants her request and Haman is
hanged on the very gallows he had designed for Mordecai. Mordecai is
made prime minister in Haman's place.
The decree that the Jews be slaughtered could not be rescinded for,
as the book relates, the laws of the Medes and Persians cannot be
altered. However, the Jews are allowed to defend themselves and there
is a kind of civil war in which the Jews are victorious. (These last events
are completely implausible and there is no record of such a civil war
anywhere outside this book.)
47*
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Rest of Esther
The Book of Esther, as it stands, however pleasing it might be to
nationalistic Jews, was troublesome to others, if only because it made
no reference to God. For that reason, a number of additions were
made to supply the lack, together with circumstantial quotes from sup-
posed documents (quotations that are so unrealistic as to detract still
further from the possible historicity of the book).
The Jewish scholars did not accept these additions but they appear
in the Septuagint. These additions, called "The Rest of Esther" by
the translators of the King James Version, therefore make up part of
the Apocrypha.
Jerome, in translating the Bible into Latin, recognized the apoc-
ryphal nature of the additions but did not eliminate them. Instead, he
removed them from their proper place in the book and put them at
the end as a series of supplements. This arrangement is to be found in
Catholic versions of English Bibles.
The Rest of Esther contains a verse which seems to give the name
of the translator of part (or perhaps all) of the Book of Esther into
Greek:
Esther 11:1. In the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemeus and
Cleopatra, Dositheus . . . brought this epistle . . . which they said
. . . Lysimachus the son of Ptolemeus, that was in Jerusalem, had
interpreted . . .
All the kings of Egypt from 305 to 44 B.C. (Macedonian in extrac-
tion) were named Ptolemaios, or Ptolemy in the English version. A very
common name for the Egyptian queens at this time was Cleopatra. In
116 b.c. Ptolemy VIII came to the throne and ruled in conjunction
with his mother, Cleopatra III. If this is the Ptolemy and Cleopatra
intended, then the fourth year of their reign would be 113 b.c.
As for Lysimachus, he must be an Alexandrian Jew living in Jerusa-
lem. The Alexandrian Jews at the time would frequently have Greek
names as American Jews today frequently have American names. That
his father's name was Ptolemy would not make him a prince, either.
No doubt many men carried the name who were by no means part of
the royal family.
ESTHER
473
The Rest of Esther goes on to talk of Mordecai's dreams, and of the
details of the plot against the king which he foils. Mordecai's prayers,
and Esther's, are quoted. (In his prayer, Mordecai explains that it is
not out of pride that he refuses to bow to Haman, but in order that he
might not give to man what ought only to be given to God.) In
addition, two letters are quoted which purport to be official orders
from Ahasuerus, the first ordering that the Jews be exterminated and
the second permitting the Jews to defend themselves and to live under
their own laws.
One oddity in the last letter is a strange accusation against Haman:
Esther 16:10. For Aman [Haman], a Macedonian . . . a stranger
from, the Persian blood . . .
For Ahasuerus (Xerxes) to denounce Haman as a Macedonian is
a clear anachronism. The time was to come, a century and a half
after the incidents in Esther were supposed to have happened, when
the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great was to destroy the
Persian Empire and make it his own, but in Xerxes' time, Macedon
was a kingdom under Persian domination, not dangerous to anybody.
Still, at the time Esther was written it was the Macedonian kings of
the Seleucid Empire, and not the ancient and nearly forgotten Amale-
kites, who were the great enemies of the Jews, and this verse can be
considered a thrust at them.
18. JOB
JOB • UZ • SATAN • TEMAN • ORION • THE PLEIADES • ARCTURUS • BUZ ■
MAZZAROTH • BEHEMOTH • LEVIATHAN
Job
The Book of Job, which follows Esther, is a philosophic drama
dealing with the problem of good and evil. It is so little concerned
with secular history that the question of whether it describes events
that really happened does not really arise. Its religious and ethical
message would be the same even if it is the fiction it seems to be.
No one can say exactly when the book might have been written.
Most scholars seem to conclude that the book as we now have it is
post-Exilic, and was composed sometime during the Persian period. It
begins:
Job 1:1. There was a man . . . whose name was Job . . .
No genealogy is given for Job, and no connection with Biblical
history is attempted. Perhaps none was needed at the time of writing,
for Job seems to have been the hero of a well-known legend; a legend
describing a good man of superhuman patience who bore up under
great misfortune without ever losing his faith in God.
The original legend must be ancient (there is even a form of it
existing in Babylonian literature) and the writer of the Biblical Book
of Job includes it as a prose introduction and a prose ending to the
book. In between that beginning and ending, however, he inserts his
own deep poetic probing of the relationship between God and man,
allowing it to be carried like rich cargo within the simple and sturdy
vessel of the well-known Job legend.
Canaan Before the Conquest
476
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
There is one Biblical reference that seems to deal with the original
Job legend. This is to be found in the writings of the prophet Ezekiel,
who lived during the Exile and therefore, very likely, before the Book
of Job was written. When Ezekiel quotes God's warning that He will
destroy idolaters, it is specified that evildoers will not escape because
of the merits of the pious among them.
Ezekiel 14:13. . . . when the land sinneth against me . . . then
will I ... cut off man and beast from it:
Ezekiel 14:14. Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job
were in it, they should deliver but their own souls . . .
Uz
Job's genealogy may not be given, but his home is.
Job 1:1. There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name
was Job . . .
Job 1:3. . . . this man was the greatest of all the men of the
east.
At once the question arises: Where was Uz? As far as the essential
point of the book is concerned, the question need not be asked, for
the great problem dealt with in the Book of Job transcends time and
space. But here we are devoting ourselves to the secular side of the
Bible and the "land of Uz" must have had some significance to the
original readers of the book. What was that significance?
The fact that Job is characterized as "the greatest of all the men of
the east" would seem to imply that he was a wealthy sheik, dwelling
to the east of Canaan on the border of the desert.
If, however, we turn back to the genealogical lists of Genesis, we
find:
Genesis 10:22. The children of Shem; . . . Aram.
Genesis 10:23. children of Aram; Uz . . .
The names in these early genealogies stand for eponymous ancestors,
and individuals are said to be related when the areas or tribes they
represent are neighboring. If the individual Uz is said to be a son of
job 477
Aram, it is reasonable to suppose that the land of Uz is a district in
Aram (that is, Syria) and that Uz is therefore north of Canaan. In-
deed, Assyrian inscriptions speak of a district called "Ussai" in Syria.
Yet, on the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah at one point lists the
kingdoms slated to meet God's wrath and works his way up the
Mediterranean coast from Egypt to Phoenicia:
Jeremiah 25:19. Pharaoh king of Egypt . . .
Jeremiah 25:20. . . . and all the kings of the land of Uz, and
all the kings of the land of the Philistines . . .
This would seem to place Uz between Egypt and PhilistJa and,
therefore, to the south of Canaan.
An even clearer indication of this is to be found in a verse in the
Book of Lamentations. In that book, the writer, bewailing the fate of
Jerusalem after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, bursts out into a
sarcastically bitter denunciation of Edom, which he pictures as re-
joicing over Jerusalem's fall:
Lamentations 4:21. Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom,
that dwellest in the land of Uz . . .
There are thus Biblical reasons for supposing Uz to be either east,
north, or south of Canaan, and this is certainly an unsatisfactory state
of affairs.
Still, when the descendants of Esau are given in Genesis, Uz crops
up again among them:
Genesis 36:28. The children of Dishan are these; Uz . . .
A few verses later on the rulers of Edom are listed:
Genesis 36:31. And these are the kings that reigned in the land
of Edom before there reigned any king over . . . Israel.
Genesis 36:32. . . . Bela the son of Bear reigned in Edom . . .
Genesis 36:33. And Bela died and Jobab . . . reigned in his
stead.
Could Jobab have been Job? Could the writer of the book have
viewed Job as a king in Edom while the Israelites were still struggling
to establish themselves in Canaan? Certainly, the later rabbis seemed
to think that Uz was in Edom and that Job was a wealthy Edomite
who lived during the time when the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt.
478
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
(Because the story was placed at this time, rabbinic tradition had it
that the Book of Job was written by Moses, something modern
scholars do not accept, of course.)
Satan
With Job introduced, the scene switches to heaven:
Job 1:6. .. . there was a day when the sons of God came to
present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among
them.
This mention of Satan, whose name is not to be found in any of
the books based on pre-Exilic records, is one of the reasons for suppos-
ing the book to be post-Exilic.
The Persian influence is shown in the picture of God as the
head of a numerous court of assisting spirits. The difference from
the Persian view rests in the fact that Satan is not the coequal head
of a band of evil spirits but is merely a single spirit, as much subject
to God as are the others. Satan has, apparently, the important
and useful role of testing human beings to see whether their faith
in God is staunch, or merely superficial. In this role, he acts only with
God's permission and only as far as God permits.
Terrain
God praises Job's piety to Satan, who at once points out that it is
easy for a wealthy and fortunate man to be grateful for the rewards
he receives. God therefore gives Satan permission to visit Job with
misfortune in order to demonstrate that Job will remain pious.
Job's flocks and goods are destroyed; his sons and daughters are
killed; he himself is afflicted with boils. At no time, however, does
Job allow any blasphemous expression to cross his lips. He remains
pious and continues to praise God.
Three friends then come to Job:
Job 2:11. . . . Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite
and Zophar the Naamathite: . . . to mourn with him' and to
comfort him.
job 479
Eliphaz the Temanite is certainly intended to be considered an
Edomite:
Genesis 36:4. And Adah bare to Esau Eliphaz . . .
• • • •
Genesis 36:11. And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman . . .
Teman (a word meaning "south" in Hebrew) seems to have been
the name of a district in Edom (an alternate name for Esau; see
page 93). In several places in the Bible, Teman is used as a poetic
synonym for all of Edom. Thus, in the Book of Jeremiah, the prophet
says:
Jeremiah 49:7. Concerning Edom, thtts saith the Lord of hosts;
Is wisdom no more in Teman? . . .
If we say then "Eliphaz the Temanite," we might as well say
"Eliphaz the southerner" or "Eliphaz the Edomite." Perhaps the writer
even meant Eliphaz the son of Esau. In all likelihood, the original
readers of the book took him to be either this Eliphaz or a near
descendant of him.
Bildad the Shuhite is, apparently, a descendant of Shuah:
Genesis 25:2. And she [Keturah] bare him [Abraham] . . . Shuah.
Abraham's sons by Keturah apparently serve as the eponymous
ancestors for the various Arabian tribes, Midian being the best known.
The Shuhites, Bildad among them, would be Arabians then, living
to the south or southeast of Edom.
Zophar the Naamathite was an inhabitant of the town of Naamah.
There was a town in Judah by that name but no one thinks that
town was meant. Presumably, it was another town of that name
farther to the south.
Even if the case of Zophar is omitted, the probable locations of
Eliphaz and Bildad make it seem all the more likely that the writer
viewed Job as dwelling south of Canaan and that he was probably
considered an Edomite.
In the original story, the constancy of Job was rewarded by a return
of his prosperity and a growth of new happiness— as is, indeed,
recorded at the end of the book. Between the beginning just
described and that ending, however, the writer has put in a series
of speeches by Job and answers by his friends (plus a final answer
480
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
by God) that hold the meat of the book. In these speeches, Job is
anything but patient and uncomplaining, and seriously questions the
justice of God. Nevertheless, this has not, for some reason, altered the
common conception of Job as a patient, uncomplaining man.
Orion
Most of the brilliantly poetical give-and-take of the Book of Job
involves ethical and theological questions not the concern of this
volume. Yet amid the flow of metaphor some interesting material
objects are mentioned. Most of the few specific astronomical refer-
ences to be found in the Bible, for instance, are here in Job.
Job reasons that misfortunes have fallen upon him undeservedly
and that God is acting as a capricious tyrant. He lists the great accom-
plishments of God, accomplishments which prove Him to be far be-
yond the reach of mere man and make His presumed tyranny im-
possible to challenge. Job includes among God's accomplishments:
Job 9:9. . . . [God] maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and
the chambers of the south.
The Hebrew word translated here as Orion is kesil which means
"fool." How do we go from "fool" to "Orion"? Let's begin with
Orion.
By all odds, the most spectacular constellation of the heavens, par-
ticularly in the winter when nights are longest and casual observation
of the sky most likely, is Orion. No other constellation contains so
many bright stars.
The seven brightest stars are arranged in a particularly suggestive
manner. Two are on top, two on bottom, while the remaining three
form a closely spaced line between. It is not very difficult to see in this
arrangement a large man. The two upper stars represent the shoul-
ders, the two lower stars the legs, and the three middle stars the
waistline or belt. If fainter stars are added there are three stars in
a vertical line suspended from the belt, making a kind of sword,
and there are stars above one shoulder which can be pictured as
representing an arm and a club. There are even stars beyond the
other shoulder that can, without stretching matters too badly, represent
some sort of shield.
JOB 481
It is almost inevitable, then, that the constellation be interpreted
as representing either a giant warrior or a giant hunter. In the Greek
myths, Orion was a giant hunter whose deeds are reminiscent of the
better-known Hercules. According to one version, he was beloved by
Artemis, the goddess of the hunt (naturally, a great hunter would
be). His boasting and conceit offended the other gods, however, and
Apollo paid him back by playing on Artemis' vanity. He dared her to
shoot at a target she could barely see, expressing doubt of her ability
to hit it. In vainglorious display, she shot at it accurately and when
she raced for the target to retrieve her kill she found it had been
Orion and she had slain him. In grief, she placed him in the sky.
However, the early Greeks borrowed most or all of their astronomy
from the Babylonians; and among them this concept of a giant in the
sky. The Babylonians pictured the constellation as a bound giant;
bound presumably for some act of rebellion against the gods. The
Jews in the course of the Exile would naturally pick up Babylonian
astronomy. They might easily have viewed the bound giant as Nimrod,
punished for his presumption in attempting to erect the Tower of
Babel (itself a Babylon-inspired legend; see page 55). Clearly, any man
who tried to defy God was a fool and to the Jews it would be natural,
then, to refer to the constellation we call Orion as "The Fool."
The chains binding Orion are mentioned later in the Book of Job,
when God challenges man to match the divine powers:
Job 38:31. Canst thou . . . loose the bands of Orion?
The Pleiades
A second constellation mentioned in Job 9:9 is kimah. This is
taken to mean a closely bound group of stars, and the best known of
all closely bound groups is a small cluster of medium-bright stars
called the Pleiades. The notion of a close-bound cluster arises from
the later verse just mentioned, of which the first part is:
Job 38:31. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades . . .
The "sweet influences" are the forces of attraction holding the
stars of the Pleiades together and the Revised Standard Version has
the verse read, "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades . . ."
482
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In Greek mythology, the Pleiades were seven sisters whom, in life,
Orion the hunter chased. They were rescued by the gods, who changed
them into doves, then placed them in the heavens. However, they are
not far to one side of the constellation Orion, who seems still to be
pursuing them across the skies.
Arcturua
The third constellation mentioned in Job 9:9 is ash. It is translated
as "Arcturus" in the King James Version but this is the least certain
of the three translations. Arcturus is not a constellation (that is, a
group of apparently connected stars) but a single star; one of the
brightest in the heavens, to be sure.
It is referred to again in God's speech questioning man's powers:
Job 38:32. Ctrnsf thou . . . guide Arcturus with his sons?
The reference to "sons" makes little sense in connection with
Arcturus. However, if we search for another constellation in the skies
as notable as Orion or as unusual as the Pleiades, we must consider
Ursa Major, the Great Bear. Its most noticeable feature is the group of
seven stars we know as the "Big Dipper." Not only are these stars quite
bright and eye-catching, but they are so near the north celestial pole
that they never set in North Temperate latitudes at any time of night
or year. Even today, people who know nothing else about the night
sky will point out the Big Dipper without trouble.
If one considers ash to signify the Great Bear, then the "sons" might
refer to the three stars in the handle of the Big Dipper (often
pictured as an incongruously long tail to the bear). The cup of the
Dipper would be part of the constellation proper, and the three stars
of the handle would be the sons tagging along in polite single file.
The Revised Standard Version therefore translates Job 9:9 as "Who
made the Bear and Orion, the Pleaides, and the chambers of the
south" and translates Job 38:32 as "Can you . . . guide the Bear
with its children?"
As for the fourth object mentioned in Job 9:9— khadre teman—
its significance is completely lost. It is translated literally as "chambers
of the south" in the King James Version, in the Revised Standard
Version and in the Anchor Bible. Further than that no one can go.
JOB 483
Buz
Eventually, Job's eloquence in his own defense confounds his three
friends and Job's accusations against God, which have been mounting
in intensity and fervor, demand a divine answer. This is delayed six
chapters, however, when a fourth friend is suddenly introduced. He
is described as being angry that Job's view of God as a tyrant had
seemingly prevailed.
Job 32:2. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of
Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram . . .
Here, too, arises the question of a Syrian versus an Edomite scene
for the story. As a Buzite, Elihu may be considered a descendant
of someone named Buz, or as an inhabitant of a land named Buz.
Buz appears in Genesis among the descendants of Nahor, the brother
of Abraham. These are listed as:
Genesis 22:21. Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother . . .
Since Nahor was living in Haran at the time, well north of Canaan,
a northern or Syrian locale for Buz might be indicated. This is
particularly interesting since "Huz" might more accurately be ren-
dered "Uz" and is so rendered in the Revised Standard Version and
in the Anchor Bible. Both Uz, the home of Job, and Buz, the home
of Elihu's father, are indicated to be in the north. This is made
more pointed by the statement that Elihu was "of the kindred of
Ram" for some feel that Ram is a misprint for "Aram" or Syria.
Against all this is the fact that Jeremiah, in listing the nations
being warned by God (see page 477), mentions Buz as follows:
Jeremiah 25:23. Dedan and Tema, and Buz . . .
Now in the Book of Genesis, Dedan is listed as a grandson of
Abraham by Keturah:
Genesis 25:1. . . . Abraham took a wife, and her name was
Keturah.
Genesis 25:2. And she bare him . . . Jokshan . . .
Genesis 25:3. And Jokshan begat . . . Dedan . . .
4 8 4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
while Tenia is a son of Ishmael:
Genesis 25:13. . . . these are the names of the sons of Ishmael . . .
Genesis 25:15. Hadar, and Tema. . . .
Since Dedan and Tema are thus shown to be Arabic clans, Jeremiah's
grouping of Buz with these two would mean that Buz also was an
Arabic clan, and the southern scene for Job is again indicated.
The long speech of Elihu that follows his introduction seems to be
a late interpolation. At least, Elihu adds nothing particularly new to
previous arguments, he is not answered by Job, nor is he mentioned
later in the book.
Mazzaroth
At the conclusion of Elihu's speech, God is suddenly introduced,
and personally answers Job, contrasting divine omnipotence with
human limitations. He points out, for instance, that man is unable
to order the heavens. He introduces one astronomical object not
mentioned earlier in the book:
Job 38:32. Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?
Mazzaroth occurs only in this one verse of the Bible and is a
transliteration of the Hebrew word. The connection of Mazzaroth with
seasonal progression (it is brought forth "in his season") rouses some
speculation that it might mean the zodiacal constellations as a group.
Each of these reaches the zenith at a different month of the year
so that the whole acts as a primitive calendar of the year's seasons.
There is also the possibility that Mazzaroth means "the planets,"
whose paths follow a much more complicated pattern against the
sky and which therefore require much greater virtuosity to govern and
regulate.
Behemoth
God goes on to describe further the wonders of nature which have
been divinely created, guided, and regulated and which mankind is
incompetent to cope with.
JOB 485
Job 40:15. Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he
eateth grass as an ox.
The Hebrew word behemoth is the plural of behemah, meaning
"beast." The word is placed in the plural to imply, apparently,
that the behemoth is many beasts in size and strength; it is the
greatest of beasts.
We have here a description of a huge herbivorous creature of power-
ful strength, and it would be natural to equate behemoth with the
elephant, which is the largest land animal alive today and which
"eateth grass as an ox."
Further verses, however, rather spoil this notion:
Job 40:21. He lieth ... in the covert of the reed, and fens.
Job 40:22. . . . the willows of the brook compass him about.
This gives the impression of a river animal and turns the attention
to the hippopotamus, the second largest land animal. It, too, is
herbivorous.
In ancient times, the hippopotamus was quite common along the
Nile and it is to be expected that the writer of the Book of Job was
familiar with it. (Indeed, might not the writer have lived in Egypt
and been a little hazy about Palestinian geography, thus giving rise
to some of the uncertainties concerning the geographic setting of the
book?)
Nevertheless, as the Anchor Bible points out, the behemoth seems
to be larger and stronger than even a hippopotamus or elephant.
Instead, it bears a mythological character, especially in the later
rabbinical tales, and in some of the Apocrypha, where the behemoth is
pictured as unimaginably colossal and as designed to be killed in the
Messianic age to feed all the righteous at once. The Anchor Bible
suggests that it might be a hang-over from a Mesopotamian myth
of the great bull killed by Gilgamesh.
Leviathan
God, having described behemoth at some length, goes on at even
greater length to describe another creature.
Job 41:1. Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook?
486
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The leviathan is obviously a sea creature and is described as the
largest and most fearsome of them. Most Biblical commentators con-
sider Leviathan, at least in this passage, to represent the deadly man-
eating crocodile of the Nile, a fit companion piece for the hippopota-
mus of the Nile.
Very commonly, in poetic imagery, the term is applied to a sea
creature which far surpasses the crocodile in size— the whale. The
largest whale, the blue whale of Antarctic waters, is up to a hundred
feet long and weighs as much as 150 tons. It is not only the largest
animal now alive, but the largest animal that ever lived, the dinosaurs
and other extinct animals of aeons past included.
But again there seem to be strong mythological components to
Leviathan, as to behemoth. In many mythologies, the supreme god,
shortly after his birth, or his coming into being, is described as defeat-
ing some huge monster. Often, he creates the universe out of the
remnants of that monster. This can be taken as symbolizing the victory
of order over disorder; of cosmos over chaos.
In Babylonian mythology, Marduk, the chief god, destroys the
monster Tiamat and creates the universe out of it. Tiamat is sup-
posed to be the symbolic representation of the sea, and Marduk's
creation of the universe thus parallels the creation of civilization by
the Sumerians. To create a settled agricultural society, the Sumerians
had to tame the rivers in order that floods might be prevented and
orderly irrigation ensured.
This Babylonian myth representing the origin of civilization can
be traced very shadowily into the Bible. At the very start of Genesis,
the creation is described:
Genesis 1:2. And the earth was without form and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep . . .
"The deep"— that is, the chaotic and unorganized sea— is a transla-
tion of the Hebrew tehom, which is rather similar to Tiamat.
God does not fight the deep or kill it, but by the sheer force of
divine command creates the world. Nevertheless, this version may be
a late one, superimposed by a more sophisticated priesthood upon an
earlier and more primitive version of the creation that hewed closer
to the common mythological notions.
For instance, in the 74th Psalm, the power of God is described as
follows:
JOB 487
Psalms 74:13. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou
brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Psalms 74:14. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces . . .
This is often taken as a symbolic description of God's punishment
of the Egyptians (represented as "leviathan" and as a "dragon")
prior to the Exodus, and of his feat in parting the Red Sea. This is
a reasonable interpretation, since it could easily be considered poet-
ically appropriate to represent Egypt as a crocodile, just as today we
represent the United States by an eagle and the Soviet Union by a
bear. But it is also possible that this is a reference to a primitive
myth in which God is pictured as bringing about the creation by
destroying the monster representing the chaotic sea.
Leviathan can also represent the forces of evil in the world, to be
slain (symbolically) by God at the end of days in order to create
a new world of righteousness and good, just as it was slain at the
beginning of days to create the world that now exists. Thus, in the
words of the prophet Isaiah:
Isaiah 27:1. In that day the Lord . . . shall punish leviathan the
piercing serpent . . . and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.
At the end of God's speech, Job realizes divine omnipotence and
understands the folly of trying to penetrate God's plans and purposes
with the limited mind of a human being. He repents and is then
restored to more wealth than he originally had. He has a new set of
sons and daughters and dies in happiness after a long life.
19. PSALMS
DAVID • THE SON * SELAH * NEGINOTH • SHEOL • CHERUB * AIJELETH SHAHAR *
ACROSTICS * S IRION • MASCHIL • ABIMELECH • JEDUTHUN • THE SONS OF
KORAH • THE DAUGHTER OF TYRE • SOLOMON * SYNAGOGUES * RAHAB *
MOSES * HALLELUJAH * MINE ANOINTED 1 HAM • MELCHTZEDEK • SONG
OF DECREES * THE RIVERS OF BABYLON
David
The Book of Psalms consists of 150 devotional poems, intended to
be chanted. The Hebrew name of the book is "Tehillim," meaning
"praises," since a great many of them praise Cod. The expression
"psalm" is from a Greek word meaning "to pluck at strings," a clear
indication of the musical instruments intended to accompany the
chanting. Psalterion is the Creek word for a stringed instrument and
the collection of psalms is called the "Psalter."
Traditionally, the authorship of most of the psalms is attributed
to king David, so that the book is sometimes referred to as "The
Psalms of David." Fully 101 of the psalms have captions that state
the name of the author and in seventy-three cases he is given as
David, sometimes with details as to the circumstances under which
the psalm was written.
Nevertheless, there is no way of proving the authorship of any
individual psalm. The Psalter is a collection of five separate anthologies
of psalms and may not have reached its present form till 150 B.C.
Some of the psalms clearly indicate their post-Exilic origin, although
it is quite possible that others may date back to quite early times,
even to David's.
The temptation to attribute psalms to David is a natural one. He
is stated in the historical books to be a skilled harpist. When Saul
was troubled with melancholia, the monarch sought surcease in music:
PSALMS
i Samuel 16:17. And Saul said . . . Provide me now a man
that can play well, and bring him to me.
1 Samuel 16:18. Then answered one of the servants and said,
Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse . . . that is cunning in play-
ing . . .
And when David was brought to court:
1 Samuel 16:23. . . . David took an harp, and played with his hand:
so Saul was refreshed . . .
Furthermore, poetic works are introduced into the Second Book
of Samuel and attributed to David. The most notable is the dirge over
Saul and Jonathan, supposed to have been composed by David after
the disastrous battle of Gilboa; a dirge that begins:
2 Samuel 1:19. The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places:
how are the mighty fallen!
Outright psalms are attributed to him, too:
2 Samuel 23:1. Now these be the last words of David. David
. . , the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
It might be natural, then, to attribute any particularly good, or
particularly popular, psalm to the sweet psalmist of Israel.
The Son
Psalm 2 is an example of one that sounds as though it could be
pre-Exilic. It is clearly written in celebration of the coronation of a
new king, and from the archaic nature of the language, it is generally
placed in the time of the monarchy.
The psalm visualizes subject peoples planning rebellion and enemies
planning to attack (as was but too often customary in the unsettled
times when a new king was ascending the throne). Then the new
king himself speaks and pictures God as standing behind him and as
promising him dominion and power:
Psalm 2:7. .. . the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee.
The kings of the ancient monarchies of the Middle East customarily
considered themselves to be the adopted sons of the national god,
49Q
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
and the day of the coronation was the day on which they were "be-
gotten" as such sons. The Jews were not entirely free of this view.
Thus, when the prophet Nathan informs David that God does not
wish him, as a man of war, to build the Temple, he nevertheless adds
that God will establish David's line upon the throne and take par-
ticular care of the dynasty:
2 Samuel 7:13. ... I will stablish the throne of his [David's]
kingdom for ever.
2 Samuel 7:14. I will be his father, and he shall be my son . . .
Later Christian thought saw more to it than this, however. Jesus,
as the Messiah, was considered as bearing a special relationship to
God; a relationship that was most easily expressed in the word "son."
This psalm was therefore considered to have Messianic significance, and
even if it were written with a particular earthly king in mind, it never-
theless had a further, deeper meaning, and applied to the Messiah.
It is for this reason that the King James Version capitalizes the word
"Son" in the twelfth verse of the psalm. The Revised Standard
Version, which is less concerned with Messianic prophecies, puts the
word in the lower case.
Selah
The 3rd Psalm is the first to have a title:
Psalm 3: A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his
son.
The Hebrew could mean either "A Psalm Written by David" or
"A Psalm Concerning David" and it is to be noted that the phrase
"A Psalm of David" can also have either of these two meanings in
English. However, the traditional assumption is that it means "written
by."
The psalm contains an odd word at the end of three of the verses:
Psalm 3:2. Many there be which say of my soul, There is no
help for him in God. Selah.
The expression "Selah" occurs seventy-one times altogether in the
Book of Psalms, almost always at the end of a verse, and usually at
PSALMS 491
the end of a natural pause in the thought. Presumably, it gives
some direction to those chanting the psalm, but what that direction
might be, nobody knows.
Neginoth
Other directions involving the musical accompaniment of the psalms
are sometimes given in the titles.
Psalm 4. To the chief Musician on Neginoth . . .
Psalm 5. To the chief Musician upon Nehiloth . . .
Neginoth means "stringed instruments," while nehiloth means
"pipes" or "wind instruments." In the Revised Standard Version, the
title to Psalm 4 is given as "To the choirmaster, with stringed in-
struments," while that to Psalm 5 is given as ". . . for the flutes . . ."
The title of Psalm 6 is less easily interpreted:
Psalm 6. To the chief Musician on Neginoth upon Sheminith . . .
Sheminith means "the eighth" and this could mean an eight-
stringed instrument. It could also refer to an octave, and means
perhaps that the psalm is to be sung in two voices an octave apart.
The title of Psalm 7 is more puzzling still:
Psalm 7. Shiggaion of David, which he sang unto the Lord,
concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite.
The meaning of shiggaion is unknown and, out of desperation, it
is usually considered as simply meaning "psalm." And if that were not
puzzle enough, the reference to Cush the Benjamite is likewise
mysterious, for no reference to this incident occurs elsewhere in the
Bible.
It also seems useless to attempt to interpret the titles of the next
two psalms:
Psalm 8. To the chief Musician upon Gittith . . .
Psalm 9. To the chief Musician upon Muthlabben . . .
Gittith is, presumably, some sort of musical instrument, but no one
can say what. Muthlabben might be dismissed in similar fashion but
it seems to mean "death of" and that cannot be right. Either it also
492 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
means something else, or it is the result of a copyist's error, and the
original meaning can no longer be salvaged.
Psalm 9 contains still another mysterious word:
Psalm 9:16. . . . the wicked is snared in the work of his own
hands. Higgaion. Selah.
Higgaion means "meditation" and perhaps it directs a pause during
which the singers may meditate on what has been chanted.
The title of Psalm 16 is:
Psalm 16. Michtam of David.
Michtam has been connected with the Hebrew word for gold, and
it is conceivable that the 16th Psalm is estimated by the anthologists
who gathered this group as a particularly good one; a "golden psalm,"
in other words.
Sheol
The 18th Psalm, one of the longer ones, has a title to suit:
Psalm 18. ... A Psalm of David . . . in the day that the Lord
delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand
of Saul . . .
This particular psalm is quoted in the twenty-second chapter of
2 Samuel after the description of the rebellions of Absalom and of
Sheba are done with (see page 318). David has indeed been delivered
from the hand of all his enemies but it is puzzling why Saul, the
enemy disposed of a generation earlier, should be singled out for
mention.
One possibility (accepted by the Anchor Bible) is that "Saul" is a
copyist's error for Sheol, the afterworld (see page 173). The psalm
would then be one of gratitude for the psalmist's escape from death.
This seems to fit in with the subject matter of the psalm:
Psalm 18:4. The sorrows of death compassed me . . .
Psalm 18:5. The sorrows of hell [Sheol] compassed me about . . .
Even in the immediate post-Exilic period, the picture of Sheol is
still that of a shadowy existence, like that of the Greek Hades rather
PSALMS
493
than of the later notions of Hell. The word is usually associated with
existence underground, as is indicated by the common use of the term
"pit" for Sheol:
Psalm 28:1. . . . I become like them that go down into the
pit . . .
There are synonyms for Sheol that indicate something worse than
more shadowy non-existence. Thus, in the Book of Job, Job describes
his own misery as creating a visible Hell for him while he is yet alive:
Job 26:6. Hell [Sheol] is naked before him, and destruction
hath no covering.
And in the Book of Psalms:
Psalm 88:11. Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave?
or thy faithfulness in destruction?
In both these verses, the parallelism of Hebrew poetry makes
"destruction" a synonym of the grave, or of Sheol. "Destruction" is a
direct translation of the Hebrew word Abaddon. This is left un-
translated in the Revised Standard Version to make it clearer that a
place is meant and not an abstract process.
The fact that Abaddon means "destruction" or "ruin" carries a more
dreadful aura about it than is achieved by the comparatively neutral
word "Sheol." The Anchor Bible translates Abaddon as "Perdition"
in Job 26:6. This word comes from a Latin term meaning "ruin"
or "loss," again emphasizing the worse aspects of Sheol and illustrat-
ing the growing concept of Hell as a place of torture and eternal
punishment.
Gradually, Abaddon changed from a place to a fiend in charge of
that place. Abaddon became the evil spirit of Hell's tortures, a kind
of infernal Torquemada. Abaddon is mentioned in this guise in the
Book of Revelation in the New Testament:
Revelation 9:11. . . . the angel of the bottomless pit, whose
name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue
hath his name Apollyon.
Apollyon (from a Greek word meaning "to destroy completely")
is one of the allegorical elements in John Bunyan's book The Pilgrim's
Progress, published in the 1680's. The extreme popularity of Bunyan's
494 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
book has made Apollyon familiar in the guise of a fiend armed with
fiery arrows.
Cherub
At least parts of the 18th Psalm may be very old, for Yahveh is
pictured as a storm-god, in the fashion of the archaic Song of Deborah
(see page 239).
Psalm 18:10. And he [the Lord] rode upon a cherub and did
fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.
The cherubim are usually pictured anthropomorphically as power-
ful supernatural winged creatures (see page 148), but here one gets
a glimpse beyond, to the natural phenomena that inspired the thought.
This passage of the psalm describes the terrific natural catastrophes-
earthquakes, volcanoes, hail, thunderstorms— that seem to bear direct
witness to the overwhelming power of God. The cherub may represent
the storm blast, the terrifyingly destructive power of the invisible air.
Aijeleth Shahar
The title of the 22nd Psalm is:
Psalm 22. To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar.
Aijeleth Shahar is translated "The Hind of the Dawn" in the Re-
vised Standard Version. It is possible that this is the name (or the first
phrase) of some well-known melody to which the psalm was supposed
to be sung. If so, the same may be true in several other cases:
Psalm 46. ... A Song upon Alamoth.
Psalm 56. To the chief Musician upon fonath-elemrechokim . . .
Psalm 57. To the chief Musician, Al-taschith . . .
Psalm 60. To the chief Musician upon Shushan-eduth . . .
In the Revised Standard Version, Jonath-elemrechokim is trans-
lated as "The Dove on Far-Off Terebinths." As for Alamoth and
Shushan-eduth, these are left untranslated in the Revised Standard
Version, but seem to mean "The Young Maidens" and "Lily of the
Testimony."
PSALMS
495
Al-taschith means "do not destroy." Can this, too, be the first words
of a well-known melody of the times? Or did some copyist make a
hasty note to ensure the safety of a copy he had just prepared and
did the little notation then get frozen into the Biblical canon?
Acrostics
The 25th Psalm has a structure that is completely lost in English
translation. Each line begins with a different letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, in order. The first line begins with aleph, the second with
beth, the third with gimmel, and so on.
Such an arrangement, in which the initial letters of successive
verses (or final letters, or both) give the alphabet in order, or spell
out words, are called "acrostics," from a Greek expression meaning
"the ends of verses."
The 25th Psalm is by no means the only acrostic psalm. The 34th
is another example. The 119th Psalm is a particularly complicated
one for it consists of twenty-two parts, each of which contains eight
lines. Each part is headed by a successive letter of the alphabet, and
each of the eight lines of that part begins with that letter.
Biblical acrostics are found outside the Book of Psalms, too. The
last section of the last chapter of Proverbs is an anacrostic poem
praising the virtuous woman. Again, each of the first four chapters of
Lamentations is an acrostic poem.
Acrostics have their uses. By starting each line with a letter in
alphabetic order, an aid to memory is granted the reciter. Then, too,
it is pleasant for a poet to display his virtuosity by writing an attractive
poem within the limits of an artificial convention. On the other
hand, the limits so set often force a writer to settle for less than the
best, and acrostic poems in the Bible tend to display a certain illogi-
cality in sequence. A line has to be written to fit the new initial
rather than to carry on the previous thought.
Sirion
The 29th Psalm describes the might of God in terms of nature
images:
496
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Psalm 29:5. The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars . . .
Psalm 29:6. He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon
and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Sirion, here, is the Phoenician term for Mount Hermon (see page
202) in Lebanon. This is stated specifically in Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 3:9. (Which Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion; and
the Amorites call it Shenir;)
The use of a Phoenician name is no accident. Apparently, this
psalm is a Yahvistic adaptation of an older Canaanitc hymn to the
storm-god. The parallelism in verse 6 between "calf" and "young
unicorn" again shows the unicorn to be a wild ox (see page 186).
The Revised Standard Version has the verse read, "He makes Lebanon
to skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox."
Maschil
The 32nd Psalm has the title:
Psalm 32. A Psalm of David. Maschil.
The word Maschil is left untranslated in both the Revised Standard
Version and the Anchor Bible, here and in the title of several other
psalms, but seems to carry the connotation of "instruction." Perhaps
the psalms so denoted were supposed to carry special occult meanings
apparent only to the initiated, but this is just a guess.
Abimelech
The 34th Psalm has a circumstantial title:
Psalm 34. A Psalm of David, when he changed his behaviour
before Abimelech . . .
This must surely refer to the episode in David's life when, as a
fugitive from Saul, he sought refuge in the court of Achish, king of
Gath. Fearing that the Philistines would kill him or give him up to
Saul, he feigned madness in order to ensure his release:
psalms 497
i Samuel 21:13. And he [David] changed his behaviour before
them [the Philistines], and feigned himself mad . . .
It is usual to suppose that the reference to Abimelech in the title
of the 34th Psalm is a copyist's mistake for Achish. However, it is
just possible that Abimelech was a general title for Philistine kings.
In Genesis, Abimelech, king of Gerar, is mentioned in two different
tales. The Genesis tales refer to a time before the coming of the
Philistines, to be sure, but the title may have lingered on, as Egyptian
kings were called Pharaoh regardless of their name or dynasty.
Jeduthun
The 39th Psalm seems to be dedicated to an individual:
Psalm 39. To the chief Musician, even to Jeduthun . . .
There were, apparently, three chief clans devoted to the musical
service of the Temple. The Chronicler traced back the ancestry of
these clans to the time of David:
1 Chronicles 25:1. Moreover David . . . separated to the service
of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should
prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals.
What the title may really mean is that the psalm is "after the
manner of Jeduthun"; that is, in the style made use of by the clan.
Or perhaps it had been composed by members of the clan, despite the
routine ascription of the psalm to David.
One psalm is ascribed to Heman:
Psalm 88. . . . Maschil of Heman the Ezrahite.
(where Ezrahite should really be Zerahite; see page 107).
Quite a number are ascribed to Asaph:
Psalm 50. A PsdZm of Asaph.
The eleven psalms from 73 to 83 inclusive are all attributed to
Asaph and they may represent a collection used by the Asaphic clan.
498
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Sorts of Korah
The 41st Psalm ends with a verse praising God:
Psalm 41:13. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting,
and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.
This is not considered part of the psalm but is, rather, a ritualistic
formula of praise which serves to end a collection of psalms. Such
praise of God is called a "doxology," from a Greek word meaning
"giving praise."
Psalms 1 to 41 inclusive are considered to be the first of the five
collections making up our Book of Psalms. All of the psalms of this
first collection are ascribed to David, or in a few cases are left un-
ascribed. The 42nd Psalm, however, which is the first of the second
collection, has a title, but does not include David's name.
Psalm 42. To the chief Musician, Maschil, for the sons of Korah.
Although Korah is pictured as a rebellious Levite during the time
of the Exodus (see page 172), and as one who was destroyed by
Moses, his family remained and survived to form an important group
in the Temple ritual:
1 Chronicles 9:19. . . . the Korahites, were over the work of the
service, keepers of the gates of the tabernacle . . .
The Daughter of Tyre
The 45th Psalm is rather secular. Its title includes a significant
phrase:
Psalm 45. ... A song of loves.
It is written, apparently, in honor of a royal marriage and is what
the Greeks would call an epithalamion ("at the bridal chamber").
The bride is a foreign princess:
Psalm 45:12. And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a
gift ...
PSALMS
499
The natural assumption might be that the wedding being described
is that between Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre, or between
Jehoram of Judah and Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel (see page
362). It has also been suggested, with perhaps less likelihood, that it
celebrates the wedding of Solomon and the Egyptian princess, or of
Jeroboam II (see page 369) and some foreign princess.
Solomon
Psalm 72 is one of two in the Book of Psalms that mention Solomon
in the title. (The other is the 127th Psalm.)
Psalm 72. A Psalm for Solomon.
It is a prayei that the reigning king, probably newly come to the
throne, reign long and justly; that he be rich and powerful. The notion
that Solomon in particular is concerned arises naturally out of the
mention of nations that were traditionally involved with his trading
ventures (see page 332).
Psalm 72:10. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring
presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
Sheba and Seba are intended to describe two different sections
of Arabia. Thus, in the listing of the nations in the tenth chapter of
Genesis, both are mentioned in a related fashion:
Genesis 10:7. And the sons of Cush; Seba . . . and Raamah:
and the sons of Raamah; Sheba . . .
Psalm 72 is the last psalm of the second book. It ends with a
doxology and then with a final verse:
Psalm 72:20. The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.
And so they are as far as this second collection is concerned.
The first two collections of psalms are not entirely independent
As might be expected of different anthologies, there are some duplica-
tions. Thus, the 14th Psalm in the first collection is virtually identical
with the 53rd Psalm in the second book. Then again, the 70th Psalm
in the second book is virtually a repeat of the last five verses of the
40th Psalm in the first book.
500
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Synagogues
The 74th Psalm pictures a land in ruins, with the enemy trium-
phant. Unless one pictures David speaking in allegories or in pro-
phetic vision, it becomes impossible to ascribe it to him or, in
fact, to any period in the history of the kingdoms. At the earliest it
must be after the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar:
Psalm 74:7. They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have
defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the
ground.
Indeed, the psalm might possibly be dated later still, for the very
next verse goes on to say:
Psalm 74:8. They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them to-
gether: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the
land.
The word "synagogue" is from the Greek expression meaning "an
assembling together" and is precisely analogous to the Latin-derived
"congregation" or the Anglo-Saxon-derived "meeting place." The Re-
vised Standard Version uses the Anglo-Saxon equivalent and translates
the verse: "they burned all the meeting places of God in the land."
The synagogue did not become prominent until the time of the
Exile. With the Temple destroyed and the ritualistic paraphernalia of a
centralized worship gone, something had to be improvised if Judaism
were to survive. Worship came to be centered about the written books
being produced by the scribes. Groups of Jews gathered at meeting
places, or synagogues, to study the books, read them aloud, sing the
hymns, and so on.
Even after the return and the rebuilding of the Temple, the new
habit persisted. Not all Jews had returned, after all, and even those
who were back in the land had become used to the relatively informal
gatherings and continued them. By Greek times, the synagogue had
grown important indeed, and it was only then, during the Seleucid
persecution, that one might say "they have burned up all the syna-
gogues." It is for this reason that suggestions are made that the 74th
PSALMS 5OI
Psalm, or at least the version we now possess, may be among the latest
ones and may have been composed in 165 b.c.
Rahab
The 87th Psalm lists the heathen nations surrounding Judea, and
predicts that all will turn to God and Jerusalem eventually. (Or
perhaps the reference is to the Jews who were scattered abroad among
the surrounding nations even after the rebuilding of the Temple,
with the psalm containing the hope that all would eventually return.)
The list of nations contains one strange name, however:
Psalm 87:4. I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon . . .
behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia . . .
Rahab seems to be another name for the mythical monster destroyed
by God at the beginning of time to create the world:
Psalm 89:10. Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is
slain . . .
or:
Isaiah 51:9. Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord
. . . Art thou not it that has cut Rahab, and wounded the
dragon?
Rahab, like Leviathan (also used as the name for the primitive
monster, see page 487), seems to make reference to a nature myth.
Where Leviathan is the chaotic sea tamed by the forces of order,
so Rahab (meaning "storm") would seem to be the howling of the
elements; elements that had to be subdued by the forces of order
before they subverted the universe.
But Rahab, like Leviathan, could be used as a symbolic representa-
tion of Egypt; and talk of breaking or cutting or wounding could
then be equated with God's punishment of Egypt at the time of the
Exodus.
The representation of Egypt as a monstrous dragon is a rather
appropriate one. Egypt is, essentially, the banks of the Nile River, the
ever-fertile ribbon through the desert that saw the growth of a mighty
civilization and was the richest portion of the world for thousands
502
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of years. The river wound like a great snake or dragon across the
land, and Ezekiel uses this metaphor very effectively when he quotes
God as saying to Egypt:
Ezekiel 29:3. . . . Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of
Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers . . .
Ezekiel 29:4. . . . I will put hooks in thy jaws . . . and I will
bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers . . .
Here the language that might be appropriate for the battle between
the God of order and the monster of chaos is made into a metaphoric
description of a battle between God and Egypt.
Ezekiel wrote during the Exile, and by post-Exilic times, Rahab
had apparently become an accepted synonym for Egypt. In the 87th
Psalm, it seems clearly to be used in this manner.
Moses
The 89th Psalm, a sad one apparently composed during the Exile,
ends the third collection and closes with a doxology. The 90th Psalm,
the first of the fourth collection, is the only one in the Book of Psalms
that is attributed to none other than Moses:
Psalm 90. A Prayer of Moses the man of God.
This may be because it speaks of the creation— the peculiar province
of Genesis, a book traditionally written by Moses.
Psalm 90:1. Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place . . .
Psalm 90:2. Before . . . ever thou hadst formed the earth . . .
Hallelujah
The 104th Psalm ends:
Psalm 104:35. . . . Bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye
the Lord.
The 105th Psalm, immediately afterward, ends also with "Praise ye
the Lord." In fact, "Praise ye the Lord" occurs at the beginning or end
PSALMS 503
(or both beginning and end) of fifteen different psalms in the last two
collections of the Book of Psalms. In Hebrew, the expression is
"Hallelujah" ("praise Yah").
The Greek form of the word is "Alleluia" and that occurs in
Revelation:
Revelation 19:1. . . . I heard a great voice of much people in
heaven, saying, Alleluia . . .
Mine Anointed
The 105th Psalm has a curiously influential verse. The care of God
for those who follow him is detailed; as in the Patriarchal Age, when
he cared for Abraham and his few descendants, precariously existing
in a hostile land:
Psalm 105:14. He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he re-
proved kings for their sokes;
Psalm 105:15. Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my proph-
ets no harm.
The reference seems to be to the passage in Genesis when God re-
proves Abimelech, king of Gerar, in a dream, after Abimelech has taken
Abraham's wife, Sarah, into his harem. God says:
Genesis 20:7. Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a
prophet . . . and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt
surely die . . .
This passage in the 105th Psalm served as a kind of shield for the
priesthood against the secular power. In the middle ages, it was used to
protect priests from being tried by secular courts, since the king must
do God's prophets (a term extended, liberally, over the clergy gener-
ally) no harm. This was valuable for the clergy, since the clerical courts
did not pronounce the death sentence, and this was called "benefit of
clergy."
This was eventually extended to all who could read (since literacy
was virtually confined to the clergy in the middle ages). If a person
convicted of murder could read a passage from the Bible, he was ex-
empt from execution but was merely branded on the hand. A second
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
murder, however, would mean execution. Literacy meant one murder
free, so to speak, but no more. Soon after 1800, this practice was ended.
Perhaps too many people were learning to read.
Ham
The 105th Psalm recalls the days of Egyptian slavery, too, and the
Exodus that followed:
Psalm 105:23. Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned
in the land of Ham.
The parallelism of Hebrew poetry shows that "land of Ham" is a
name for Egypt. Ham is that son of Noah from whom the nations of
northeastern Africa are descended, according to the genealogical lists
in Genesis:
Genesis 10:6. And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim . . .
Mizraim is the Hebrew word for Egypt, so that what is really being
said is that Egypt is the son of Ham, and Ham can therefore be used
poetically to represent Egypt as well as Mizraim can.
Indeed, Ham is the better name of the two, since the ancient
Egyptians' name for their own land was a word very like Ham. The
word was usually taken to mean "black" as a reference to the black
fertile land bordering the Nile, in contrast to the arid yellow sands of
the desert on either side.
Melchizedek
The 106th Psalm ends with a doxology and the 107th begins the
fifth and last collection incorporated into the Book of Psalms. The
110th Psalm is another one of those which praises a king, perhaps on
the occasion of his coronation, promising him greatness and power.
More than that, he is promised priesthood:
Psalm 110:4. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou
art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
PSALMS 505
This might well be a reference to the struggle between king and
High Priest for control of the Temple ritual. This struggle appears
most prominently in the Bible in connection with the tradition that
Uzziah was struck with leprosy as punishment for attempting to lead
the Temple rites (see page 423). The priestly position was that only
Levites of the line of Zadok could properly conduct them. The king,
a member of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David, could
have nothing to do with them.
The Psalm recalls, however, that there was a king of Jerusalem
named Melchizedek (sec page 73). This was a priest so acceptable
to God that Abraham himself did him reverence. The capacity for
priesthood might therefore be viewed as adhering to the king in
Jerusalem from earliest times, well before the birth of Levi himself.
If the king were considered as inheriting that priesthood by virtue
of his office, he was a priest "after the order of Melchizedek."
Song of Degrees
Psalms 120 to 134 inclusive bear titles such as:
Psalm 120. A Song of degrees.
"Degrees" means "steps." One might picture such psalms being
sung as a priestly procession moves up one of the stairways associated
with the Temple. For that reason, the title is given as "A Song of
Ascents" in the Revised Standard Version.
On the other hand, these psalms might have been used by pilgrims
going to the Temple for one of the great festivals. They would
"go up" to Jerusalem in stages— or "ascend by degrees." The pos-
sibility of pilgrim usage is strengthened by the fact that the writer of
the 120th Psalm bemoans the fact that he lives among the heathen:
Psalm 120:5. Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell
in the tents of Kedar.
Mesech, or Meshech, is described in the genealogies of Genesis
as being a son of Japheth.
Genesis 10:2. The sons of Japheth; . . . Tubal, and Meshech,
and Tiras.
506 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
while Kedar is a son of Ishmael:
Genesis 25:13. . . . The sons of Ishmael . . . Nabajoth; and
Kedar, and Adbeel . . .
These two terms, Mesech and Kedar, are used poetically here to
signify non-Jewish societies in general.
The Rivers of Babylon
The 137th Psalm is clearly of Exilic origin:
Psalm 137:1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea,
we wept, when we remembered Zion.
Babylon is, of course, on the Euphrates River and the Tigris River
is about forty miles to the east. The exiled Jews, spread over the region,
might, conceivably, have been referring to these two as the rivers of
Babylon.
However, Babylonia was an irrigated land and the reference is
much more likely to be to the numerous intersecting canals. We
would get a truer picture if we were to read the phrase, "By the
canals of Babylon . . ." Indeed, the Revised Standard Version avoids
making use of the misleading "rivers" and translates the phrase, "By
the waters of Babylon . . ."
20. PROVERBS
SOLOMON • HEZEKIAH • SPARE THE ROD * AGUR * LEMUEL
Solomon
The Book of Proverbs gets its name from its first phrase:
Proverbs 1:1. The proverbs of . . .
This phrase, in Hebrew, is "Mishli," which is the title of the
book in Hebrew. The word mishli might more accurately be translated
as "the wise sayings of," as is done in the Anchor Bible.
"Proverb" is a narrow term, for it is not only a "wise saying,"
but it is also a "folk saying," a pithy one, usually, that has arisen out
of the experience of people generally. It is usually of unknown origin
and frequently used in everyday speech.
The Book of Proverbs is a heterogeneous collection that includes
proverbs in this narrow sense, and more elaborate "wise sayings" as
well. It is an example of the "wisdom literature" that was gathered
by writers of many ancient nations: the teachings of experience,
usually with a strong moralistic or religious bent.
In the case of the Jews, most wisdom literature was ascribed to
Solomon almost as a matter of course, for he was, traditionally, the
wisest of men:
1 Kings 4:30. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all
the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.
1 Kings 4:31. For he was wiser than all men . . .
1 Kings 4:32. And he spake three thousand proverbs . . .
Two sections of the Book of Proverbs are indeed made up of a
group of short aphorisms which are specifically ascribed to Solomon.
The Empire of David and Solomon
PROVERBS 509
The first extends from Chapter 10 through the first half of Chapter
22 and begins:
Proverbs 10:1. The proverbs of Solomon . . .
The second collection covers chapters 25 through 29 and begins:
Proverbs 25:1. These are also proverbs of Solomon . . .
There is no doubt but that many of the proverbs are ancient indeed
and could have reached back to Solomon's time and even earlier.
There is nothing impossible in Solomon having collected a group of
proverbs or even having put them into literary form. Still, much of
the atmosphere of the book seems to make it almost certainly belong
to a period considerably later than Solomon's time, and the final
form of the collection, including the two lists of proverbs assigned to
Solomon, may not have reached its present form till post-Exilic times,
say about 300 b.c. At that time, the general ascription must have been
placed at the beginning to cover the entire book:
Proverbs 1:1. The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, Jang of
Israel.
Hezekiah
The Book of Proverbs itself implies that at least some of the material
in it underwent editing well after the time of Solomon. Thus, in
introducing the second collection of Solomonic proverbs:
Proverbs 25:1. These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the
men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.
Hezekiah ruled two centuries after Solomon and was a firm Yahvist.
Apparently, he patronized a school of scribes, one of whose tasks
was the collection and organization of the Yahvist literature of the
past
Spare the Rod
Some of the Solomonic proverbs are indeed household expressions,
in one form or another, even today:
510 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Proverbs 13:24. He that spareth his rod hateth his soiu but he
that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
This is almost invariably cited as "Spare the rod and spoil the
child." More apt to be correctly quoted is:
Proverbs 15:1. A soft answer tumeth away wrath . . .
Then there is:
Proverbs 16:18. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty
spirit before a fall.
which is almost universally condensed to "Pride goes before a fall."
Agar
The thirtieth chapter of the book begins with a completely obscure
line; at least in the King James Version:
Proverbs 30:1. The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the
prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Veal.
The phrase "even the prophecy" seems to be the translation of the
Hebrew word massa and, apparently, this should not be translated,
for it is meant here as the name of a locality. The first line should
speak of "Agur the son of Jakeh of Massa."
In the Book of Genesis, Massa is mentioned in the genealogical
tables:
Genesis 25:13. . . . the sons of Ishmael . . .
Genesis 25:14. And Mtsnrrw, and Dumah, and Massa,
Massa might therefore be assumed to be found in Ishmaelite territory
in northern Arabia.
The reference to Ithiel and Ucal makes no sense as such, for
these do not seem to be proper names. The Anchor Bible translates the
verse as: "The words of Agur ben Jakeh of Massa. The man solemnly
affirmed, 'There is no God! There is no God, and I can[not know
anything].' "
It would seem, then, that the verse in question describes the state-
ment of an agnostic, which the chapter then goes on to counter.
PROVERBS
5"
Lemuel
The first half of the last chapter of Proverbs is assigned to a king
other than Solomon; or at least, it appears to be:
Proverbs 31:1. The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his
mother taught him.
Here again "prophecy" might be an unnecessary translation of a
place name, and the Revised Standard Version has it: "The words of
Lemuel, king of Massa."
There has been some tendency in the past to assume that Lemuel
was another name for Solomon, but this is not at all likely. In fact,
the Anchor Bible wipes out Lemuel altogether by supposing it to be a
copyist's error for a very similar Hebrew word which, when trans-
lated, would make the first verse, "Words [of advice] to a king acting
foolishly, A solemn injunction which his mother lays on him:"
The last half of this last chapter consists of an acrostic poem in
praise of the industrious housewife that begins with the well-known:
Proverbs 31:10. Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price
is far above rubies.
21. ECCLESIASTES
THE PREACHER • VANITY * THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON • ECCLESIASTICUS
The Preacher
Following the Book of Proverbs is a second item coming under the
heading of "wisdom literature." This begins:
Ecclesiastes 1:1. The words of the Preacher . . .
"Preacher" is a translation of the Hebrew word koheleth, which is of
uncertain meaning. Usually, it is associated with the word kahal,
meaning "an open assembly," so that koheleth might be one who
convenes such an assembly or addresses it. If the assembly is gathered
together for the purpose of religious instruction, then its addresser
would be a preacher.
The Greek word for an assembly is ekklesia and one who addresses
it would be ekklesiastes. In Latin spelling that is ecclesiastes and this is
the title to the book.
The Preacher announces his identity as:
Ecclesiastes 1:1. The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king
in Jerusalem.
This seems to be a clear indication that it is Solomon talking, and
has often been taken as such. However, this is merely the common
ascription of almost any piece of wisdom literature to Solomon. Actu-
ally, the book seems to be post-Exilic and to have been written, at the
best guess, between 300 and 200 b.c.
The Empire of David and Solomon
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Vanity
The book opens with the author's general thesis:
Ecclesiastes 1:2. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of
vanities; all is vanity.
The Hebrew word translated here as "vanity" implies something as
insubstantial as air, so that the Anchor Bible translates the verse "A
vapor of vaporsi ... All is vapor."
The word "vanity" comes from a Latin term meaning "empty." The
expression "vanity of vanities" in Hebrew idiom implies a kind of
maximum vanity, just as "song of songs" is the greatest song and "king
of kings" is the greatest king.
Perhaps, then, the verse, in modern terms, could be translated "All
is nothing . . . Nothing means anything."
That, in effect, is the central thesis of the book— the emptiness of
earthly things.
In order to impress this fact, the Preacher maintained that life was
empty not only for the poor and weak, but for the rich and powerful
as well. He therefore continues his role as king.
Ecclesiastes 1:12. 1 the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
Ecclesiastes 1:13. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by
wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven . . .
Here it seems even clearer than before that the Preacher is imperson-
ating Solomon. Yet this impersonation continues only through the first
two chapters of the book and it would appear to be merely a literary
device. Even the most magnificent and happiest of all kings (in Jewish
eyes), Solomon himself, is pictured as being unable, in the long run,
to find anything meaningful in life.
In the end the Preacher feels all that can be done is to seize the
temporary and ephemeral joys that come along and to remain uncon-
cerned for anything more lasting:
Ecclesiastes 8:15. . . .a man hath no better thing under the sun,
than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry . . .
ECCLESIASTES 515
And in the end he returns to his original thesis:
Ecclesiastes 12:8. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, all is vanity.
Another writer, apparently appalled at the pessimism of the Preacher,
added an addendum to the book; an addendum which came to be
included in the canon. Its nub is:
Ecclesiastes 12:13. • • • * ?ear God, and keep his command-
ments . . ,
The Wisdom of Solomon
Not all wisdom literature succeeded in being admitted to the Jew-
ish canon, even though ascribed to Solomon. This happened when the
books supposedly written by Solomon were actually composed after the
approximate cutoff date of 150 b.c. A case in point is that of a book
apparently written by an Alexandrian Jew sometime between 100 and
50 B.C.
The writer, himself unknown, assumes the personality of Solomon in
order to dramatize his praise of a personified Wisdom. For this reason
the book is known as "The Wisdom of Solomon."
The author's personification of Solomon is clearest in the seventh
chapter:
Wisdom of Solomon 7:7. Wherefore I prayed, and understanding
was given me: I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came to
me.
This clearly refers back to the passage in the First Book of Kings in
which Solomon is described as seeing God in a dream and being offered
anything he wishes. Solomon, in the dream, replies:
1 Kings 3:9. Give . . . thy servant an understanding heart to
judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad . . .
Since Solomon is, however, certainly not the author, this apocryphal
book is often called more appropriately "The Book of Wisdom" and it
is by that name that it appears in the Catholic versions of the Bible.
5 i6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Ecclesiasticus
Another piece of wisdom literature is notable for bearing within it
the name of the author, speaking in his own right and making no
attempt to ascribe his words to an ancient worthy.
Ecclesiasticus 50:27. Jesus the son of Sirach of Jerusalem hath
written in this book the instruction of understanding and knowledge.
For this reason, the title of the book is given as "Wisdom of Jesus,
Son of Sirach." The name is here presented in Greek form. In Hebrew
it would be "Joshua ben Sira." This book was composed too late to
qualify for the Jewish canon and was consigned to the Apocrypha. It
is, however, to be found in the Catholic version of the Bible.
Because of the high caliber of its ethical teachings, the book was
much used as a source of texts for sermons and was closely associated
with churchly preaching from quite early times. Cyprian, the bishop
of Carthage, took to calling this book "Ecclesiasticus" ("the church
book") as early as aj>. 250 and the custom has continued ever since.
Something about the date at which the book was written may be
deduced from a reference toward the end of the book. The writer be-
gins
Ecclesiasticus 44:1. Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers
that begat us.
He goes on to call the list of notables from Biblical history: Enoch,
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb,
Samuel, Nathan, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Jo-
siah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah.
Having gone through the list, he then proceeds to reach a natural
climax by praising a recent spiritual leader of the people — carrying his
brief review of history to what was then the contemporary era:
Ecclesiasticus 50:1. Simon the high priest, the son of Onias, who
in his life repaired the house again, and in his days fortified the
temple:
The trouble is that there were two High Priests by the name of
Simon in the early Creek era. The first, whom we might call Simon I,
was High Priest about 300 B.C., while the second, Simon II, was High
ECCLESIASTES 517
Priest about 200 b.c. What's more, both had fathers who were named
Onias. It is much more likely, though, that Simon II is the one being
referred to, for if the book had been written in 300 b.c. or shortly
thereafter it would, very likely, have entered the canon.
Backing this view is a reference in the preface to the book —
Ecclesiasticus was originally written in Hebrew. This Hebrew version
was lost and, throughout Christian times, the book was known only in
Greek and Aramaic, and in translations from manuscripts in those lan-
guages. The fact that the Hebrew version did exist, however, was as-
sumed from the statement of a grandson of the writer. He came to
Egypt, where the Jews spoke Greek, and in a preface that is usually
included with the book, he explains (with becoming modesty) that he
labored to prepare a Greek translation from the Hebrew. As for his
time of arrival in Egypt, that was "in the eight and thirtieth year . . .
when Euergetes was king."
The thirteen Macedonian kings of Egypt, who ruled from 305 to
44 b.c, each took the name Ptolemy, but each added a second name
(or had it added by sycophantic courtiers), usually of self-praise. The
name "Euergetes" means "benefactor," for instance. There were two
Ptolemies so named. One was Ptolemy III, who reigned from 246
to 22 1 b.c, and the other was Ptolemy VII, who reigned from 145 to
116 b.c. The former reigned twenty-five years and the latter reigned
twenty-nine years, so that neither could be said to have an "eight and
thirtieth year."
In the case of Ptolemy VII, however, the 145 to 116 b.c. stretch
covers only the period in which he was sole ruler. His older brother
had begun to rule in 181 b.c. as Ptolemy VI but his record was
wretched. In 170 b.c, he had shown himself so incompetent a war
leader that public opinion forced him to associate his younger brother
with him on the throne. Ptolemy VII might therefore be said to have
begun to reign in 170 b.c. and his "eight and thirtieth year" would
then be about 132 b.c.
If we assume the translator's grandfather to have written the book
half a century before, that would make the date of Ecclesiasticus about
180 B.C.
The existence of a Hebrew version of Ecclesiasticus was confirmed in
1896 when portions of Hebrew manuscripts were found which con-
tained about two thirds of the book. Still older scraps of Ecclesiasticus
were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
22. THE SONG OF SOLOMON
SOLOMON ' EN -C EDI • SHARON • THE VOICE OF THE TURTLE * TIRZAH "
SHULAMITE
Solomon
The third of the canonical books to be attributed to Solomon is
The Song of Solomon. Its first verse is its title:
Song of Solomon 1:1. The song of songs, which is Solomon's.
By "song of songs" the Hebrew idiom expresses a maximum. It is
the best or most beautiful song to have been written by Solomon. In
the Catholic version of the Bible, the book is known as "The Canticle
of Canticles," from the Latin title "Canticum Canticorum" ("Song of
Songs"). The Hebrew title is "Shir Ha-shirim," also meaning "Song
of Songs."
As in the case of Ecclesiastes, the author of this book is surely not
Solomon. The book is post-Exilic and seems to have been written about
300 b.c. or even later. It is attributed to Solomon because of the latter's
traditional literary ability:
1 Kings 4:32. And he [Solomon] spake three thousand proverbs:
and his songs were a thousand and five.
The Song of Solomon is a love poem, frankly erotic, apparently
composed to celebrate a wedding. This, too, is appropriate, for Solo-
mon had numerous wives and was, presumably, an experienced lover:
1 Kings 11:3. . . . he had seven hundred wives . . . and three
hundred concubines . . .
The Empire of David and Solomon
520
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Because of the erotic nature of the book, it has been customary to
find allegorical values in it that would make more of it than a descrip-
tion of bodily passion. In the guise of the portrayal of the love of a
man and a woman, Jews would have it speak of the love between
Yahveh and Israel; Catholics of the love between Christ and the
Church; Protestants of the love between God and man's soul.
However, if we simply accept the words as they stand, the book is a
human love poem and a very beautiful one.
Interpreting the book literally, it would seem to be a kind of poetic
drama, in which a number of different characters speak: the bride-
groom, the bride, a chorus of women, and perhaps others. Since the
book, as it appears in the Bible, gives no hint as to when one character
stops speaking and another starts, or which character says what, the
sorting out of the speeches presents a difficult problem but one which,
fortunately, need not concern us.
Some speeches are, of course, transparent enough. Surely, it is the
bride who says:
Song of Solomon 1:5. I am black, but comely . . . as the curtains
of Solomon.
Song of Solomon 1:6.... Iam black, became the sun has looked
upon me . . .
The adjective "black" does not mean that the bride is a Negress for
the blackness is the result of exposure to the sun. She is tanned. The
Revised Standard Version has the fifth verse read "I am very dark," and
the sixth verse, "I am swarthy."
There might be a tendency to think of her as the Egyptian princess
who married Solomon, since she might be expected to be dark in color-
ing. Or else it might be the queen of Sheba; a swarthy Arabian woman.
Yet that is only forced upon us if we imagine the poem to be written
literally by or about Solomon. Viewed simply as a love poem in the
tradition of Solomon, the bride is probably a peasant girl:
Song of Solomon 1:6. . . .my mother's children . . . made me the
keeper of the vineyards . . .
En-gedi
The bride speaks of her lover:
THE SONG OF SOLOMON
5 21
Song of Solomon 1:14. My beloved is unto me as a cluster of
camphire in the vineyards of En-gedi.
En-gedi is a site midway along the western shores of the Dead Sea. It
would seem an unlikely place for anything but desolation, yet it is an
oasis, thanks to the presence of natural spring water. The name "En-
gedi" means "spring of the kid." The site was famous in Jewish history
as one of the places in which David found refuge from the pursuing
Saul:
1 Samuel 23:29. And David . . . dwelt in strongholds at En-gedi.
The expression "camphire," by the way, is a transliteration of the
Hebrew kopher. By it is meant henna, a shrub with fragrant white
flowers. The Revised Standard Version translates it "My beloved is to
me a cluster of henna blossoms."
Sharon
The bride describes herself again:
Song of Solomon 2:1. 1 am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the
valleys.
Sharon is a coastal plain lying between Jaffa and Mount Carmel,
about fifty miles long and six to twelve miles wide. It doesn't figure
often in the Bible for through much of Biblical history it was occupied
by the Phoenician and Philistine power.
It passed into Israelite hands under David. He owned flocks of cattle
that grazed there under a native herdsman:
1 Chronicles 27:29. And over the herds that fed in Sharon was
Shitrai the Sharonite . . .
The Voice of the Turtle
The Song of Solomon is full of beautiful nature imagery but one
image rings false in modern ears through no fault of its own. The
bride describes her beloved as pleading with her to come with him for
it is springtime:
5"
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Song of Solomon 2:12. The flowers appear on the earth; the time
of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard
in our land.
The phrase "voice of the turtle" seems odd, for to us the turtle is
an ugly, slow-moving, shelled reptile that is voiceless, that is not associ-
ated with spring, and that certainly doesn't bear association with the
beauties of flowers and birds.
It is we, however, who are wrong, and not the verse. There is a type
of bird we call a dove, deriving that name from an old Teutonic word
that may make reference to its dull, rather dark plumage. It makes a
cooing sound which to some ears may sound like tur-tur-tur-tur. The
Hebrew word for it, imitating this sound, is tur, and the Latin word is
turtur. By substituting "1" for "r" at the end, this becomes "turtle."
The "voice of the turtle" refers to the cooing of this migratory dove
which reaches Jerusalem in the springtime.
However, there is also the shelled reptile earlier mentioned. This is
called a tortoise, perhaps (but not certainly) from a Latin word mean-
ing "crooked" because of its curved legs. To the ears of English-
speaking sailors, "tortoise" seemed an odd-sounding word and they sub-
stituted for it the more familiar "turtle," thus giving the ugly reptile
the name of a pleasant bird.
In order to distinguish the bird from the reptile, it became necessary
to call the bird a "turtledove." It is so spoken of elsewhere in the King
James Version, but not here in the Song of Solomon. The Revised
Standard Version removes the apparent anomaly by having the clause
read "and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land."
Tirzah
The pangs of love temporarily lost and the thrills of love regained are
described and at one point the bridegroom says to the bride:
Song of Solomon 6:4. Thou art beautiful, O my love, as Tirzah,
comely as Jerusalem . . .
The parallelism of Hebrew poetry forces the writer to seek a syno-
nym or analogy for Jerusalem. He might have used Zion, but was search-
ing for something less routine, perhaps, and chose Tirzah. As Jerusa-
THE SONG OF SOLOMON 523
lem was the capita] of the southern kingdom, so Tirzah was the capital
of the northern kingdom from the time of Jeroboam I to Omri, about
900 to 880 b.c. (see page 339). This is an indication that the poem
had to be written after the time of Solomon, for Tirzah was in no way
analogous to Jerusalem in the reign of a king ruling over a united king-
dom.
On the other hand, we cannot use this verse as evidence that the
poem was necessarily written before the time of Omri, when Samaria
displaced Tirzah as the capital of Israel. To have made use of Samaria
as an analogue of Jerusalem in post-Exilic times would have seemed
blasphemous for by then Samaria was the center of the hated and
heretical Samaritans. The writer was thus forced to reach back beyond
Samaria to Tirzah, which had no impossible associations.
Shulamite
The bride is addressed by her native town, either by the bridegroom
or by a chorus:
Song of Solomon 6:13. Return, return, O Shulamite . . .
It is usually supposed that Shulamite is a copyist's error for Shunam-
mite, a woman of the town of Shunam, which is about three miles
north of Jezreel.
Finally the book reaches its climax in a passionate declaration of
the strength of true love:
Song of Solomon 8:7. Many waters cannot quench love, neither
can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his
house for love, it would utterly be contemned.
In other words, love cannot be destroyed if present; but cannot be
bought if absent
23. ISAIAH
ISAIAH • AMOZ • SERAPHIM • SHEAR- J ASHUB * IM MANUEL • THE BRANCH •
COCKATRICE • LUCIFER * APOCALYPSE OF ISAIAH * ARIEL • LILITH • THE
MARTYRDOM OF ISAIAH • SECOND ISAIAH * CYRUS * THE SERVANT OF THE
LORD * BEL * BEULAH
Isaiah
The Old Testament books that follow the Song of Solomon in the
Christian versions of the Bible record the work of sixteen named proph-
ets who were supposed to have flourished during the three-century
period from 750 to 450 B.C.
These books are not placed entirely in chronological order. They are
divided into two sections on the basis of length. Fully two thirds of
the material in these prophetic books is to be found in the first three,
dealing with the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. These are the
"major prophets" and they, at least, are placed in chronological order.
The Book of Isaiah, dealing with the period of Assyrian ascendancy,
comes first.
From a strictly historical and secular viewpoint the Book of Isaiah
presents many confusions. Isaiah is not likely to have systematically
written down his utterances. Rather, his sayings were, presumably, writ-
ten down by his disciples and followers, with what changes and addi-
tions we can only guess. These made up separate collections which some
later editor put together, not necessarily in chronological order but
rather in that order which he thought would produce the greatest effect.
What's more, as time passed, additional material was added to the
book and made to seem the product of Isaiah. The later portions of the
book are certainly not Isaiah's work but are the product of a man
(possibly two men) living centuries later. The Book of Isaiah may not
Judah in the Time of Hezekiah
5*6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
have been put into its present form until as late as 350 B.C., or well
over three centuries after Isaiah's death.
The general period in which Isaiah carried out his prophetic mission
is given in the first verse of the book:
Isaiah 1:1. The vision of Isaiah . . . which he saw ... in the days
of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
Since Uzziah came to the throne in 780 b.c. and Hezekiah died in
692 b.c, this at once makes Isaiah a man of the eighth century b.c.
For the actual year of the beginning of his mission, there is more
information later in the sixth chapter, a chapter which should, if the
final editors of the book had been following a chronological scheme,
have come first. Isaiah recounts the miraculous manner in which he be-
came a prophet, and begins his description of the event with a date:
Isaiah 6:1. In the year that king Uzziah died . . .
Uzziah died in 740 b.c. and that, therefore, can be taken as the date
when Isaiah began his work. Presumably, he was a relatively young man
at the time, for he was still active during Sennacherib's siege of Jerusa-
lem nearly forty years later. If we consider Isaiah to have been a young
man of twenty when he saw his vision, he would have been born in
760 b.c. at a time when the fortunes of Israel and Judah were flourish-
ing.
In 760 b.c. Jeroboam II of Israel had extended Israel's borders to
their broadest extent since the time of Solomon, and under Uzziah,
Judah, too, was prosperous and content (see page 423). The men of
the kingdoms must have been contented, foreseeing no evil.
In 745 b.c, however, Jeroboam II died and almost at once Israel
began to fall prey to dynastic disorders. In that same year, the strong
Tiglath-Pileser III became king of Assyria, and that nation entered
on its last and mightiest period of aggression. Israel had less than a quar-
ter century of life left it.
Apparently, Isaiah could clearly see, by 740 b.c, that the good
days were gone and the evil times had come and he said so in the man-
ner made necessary by the way of thought of the time. He announced
the judgment of Yahveh upon a sinful people.
ISAIAH
5 2 7
Amoz
The name of Isaiah's father is given:
Isaiah 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz . . .
Absolutely nothing is known concerning Amoz, for he is not men-
tioned in the Bible except as the father of Isaiah in this verse and in a
few others like it. He is to be carefully distinguished from Amos, a
prophet who was an older contemporary of Isaiah. (The two names,
Amoz and Amos, are less similar in Hebrew than in English.)
There is a rabbinic tradition (based on no more, perhaps, than a
similarity in names) that Amoz was a brother of king Amaziah, who
was Uzziah's father. If this were so, Isaiah would be a member of the
royal family and a first cousin to king Uzziah. He and Uzziah would
both be grandsons of Joash, who had been saved as an infant in
Athaliah's time (see page 367).
If so, Isaiah is rather unusual, for it would seem natural for prophets
of his sort to have been drawn from among the poor, since the prophets
were spokesmen of protest. The prophets were, generally, the radicals of
their day, frequently standing in opposition to the formal priesthood,
which (as long as their prerogatives were preserved) acted in coalition
with the monarchy.
The priesthood then, as always, was primarily interested in the minu-
tiae of ritual. This was something that could easily be followed by any-
one and generally presented no difficulties. It might be a tedious way
of gaining God's favor, but it was not really painful.
The prophets, however, were likely to disdain ritual and to insist,
instead, on a high ethical code of behavior, something that could pre-
sent serious difficulties. After all, it is not only often difficult to per-
form the ethical good; it is sometimes puzzling to determine what the
ethical good might be.
Isaiah, himself, put it this way:
Isaiah 1:11. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices
unto me? saith the Lord . . .
528
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Isaiah 1:13. Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomina-
tion to me . . .
Isaiah 1:14. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul
hateth . . .
Isaiah 1:16. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your
doings . . .
Isaiah 1:17. Learn to do well; seek judgement, relieve the op-
pressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Furthermore, there was a tendency for the prophets to denounce the
rich and powerful, for these were apt to be the most worldly, most
satisfied to let ritual (if anything) serve as religion. Isaiah speaks against
the tendency of these rich to squeeze out the poor farmer and to
multiply their own holdings, polarizing society into a few large land-
owners and many tenant farmers or slaves. (This is a development
that tends to affect societies generally, and not ancient Judah alone.)
Isaiah says:
Isaiah 5:8. Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field
to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the
midst of the earth.
And yet scholars judge from Isaiah's style of writing that he did in-
deed belong to the upper classes and certainly there are cases in history
where aristocrats have lived and fought on behalf of the dispossessed of
the world and against, as the saying has it, their own class. The exam-
ple of the Russian novelist Count Leo Tolstoy springs to mind, for
instance.
Seraphim
Isaiah describes his call in terms of a vision of God experienced by
him within the Temple:
Isaiah 6:1. In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple.
Isaiah 6:2. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings;
ISAIAH 529
with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet,
and with twain he did fly.
Isaiah 6:3. And one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy,
is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
"Seraphim" is the Hebrew plural of seraph, so that the word "sera-
phims" in the King James Version is a double plural, the English form
grafted on to the Hebrew. In the Revised Standard Version, the final
"s" is dropped.
The seraphim are mentioned only here in the Bible, and they are
taken to be winged manlike creatures rather similar to the cherubs de-
scribed in connection with other visions of God.
In later times, the seraphim were included among the complicated
celestial hierarchy worked out by mystical writers. The best-known such
hierarchy was produced about ajj. 450, perhaps, by an unknown writer
whose work was ascribed to an earlier worthy named Dionysius the
Areopagite, and who is himself referred to, in consequence, as the
"pseudo-Dionysius."
According to the system of the pseudo-Dionysius there were nine
classifications of beings between man and God and of these the angels
were lowest and archangels next to the lowest. Above these, in order,
came principalities, powers, virtues, dominations, thrones, cherubim,
and seraphim. Because the cherubim and seraphim were described in
prophetic visions as being in immediate attendance upon God, they
naturally rated highest.
In our present age, less wedded to such speculation, a seraph has be-
come merely another word for an angel.
The word "seraph" is related to the Hebrew word saraph, meaning
"to burn." The seraphim may therefore be spoken of in English
as "the Burning Ones." This may refer to the gleaming radiance
issuing from them, or the burning ardor with which they serve God.
On the other hand, the word is used elsewhere in the Bible, where
it refers not to angelic beings but to "fiery serpents" (as the word
is then translated), the adjective presumably referring to the agonizing
burning of their poisonous bite.
Numbers 21:6. And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the
people . . .
53°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
If the image of a "fiery serpent" is taken literally, one can scarcely
avoid thinking of the lightning. If the earliest view of Yahveh was
that of a storm-god, as one would suspect from the Song of Deborah
(see page 239) and some of the Psalms (see page 494) then it
is thoroughly natural that His manifestation be accompanied by a fear-
some display of lightning and by the scudding of the dark storm blast.
By the time of the prophets, however, the lightning had apparently
been personified into the winged seraphim, as the storm blast had
become the cherubim (see page 494).
Shear-jashub
Already, as Isaiah had received his call, the times were growing
manifestly turbulent. Israel and Syria were attempting to organize a
coalition against the power of Assyria. When Jotham, who had suc-
ceeded Uzziah to the throne of Judah, preferred to remain outside the
coalition (judging, rightly, that it was doomed to disastrous failure),
the allied forces of Israel and Syria invaded Judah (see page 374).
The war continued through 73; B.C., when Jotham died and his son
Ahaz succeeded to the throne.
The new king, young and irresolute, required strengthening:
Isaiah 7:3. Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to
meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son . . .
The fact that Isaiah could, on a moment's notice, approach the
king is usually taken as another indication of his position in the royal
family.
Shear-jashub, the name of Isaiah's son, was chosen deliberately by
the father for its meaning in connection with the prophetic message.
Isaiah says as much:
Isaiah 8:18. . . . the children whom the Lord hath given me are
for signs . . . from the Lord . . .
The meaning of "Shear-jashub" is "a remnant shall return." This
reflects the feeling, common to Isaiah and the prophets generally,
that an evil time at hand was to be succeeded eventually by better
times. If the nation is left desolate and the population carried off into
ISAIAH 531
exile, nevertheless "a remnant shall return" and the nation shall
live again.
Perhaps Isaiah's son was born shortly after the prophet's call and
was four or five years old at the time of the meeting with Ahaz.
Immanuel
Isaiah assures Ahaz that he need not fear Israel or Syria, for de-
struction is almost upon them. All Judah need do is to hold out
resolutely.
Viewed secularly, we can see reason behind Isaiah's point of view.
The energetic Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria must have known that Israel
and Syria were attempting to establish a coalition against him and
it was certain that he would attack the coalition before they could
complete their plans. It was also certain that Assyria would smash the
small western nations. Judah, for its safety, need only remain neutral
and wait.
Ahaz, however, did not feel it safe to do nothing but hold on.
Neutrality in times of great conflict laid one open to the enmity of
both sides and Tiglath-Pileser, even if victorious, might consider
Judah's neutrality to be a sign of secret enmity. Ahaz felt it politically
wise to declare himself on the Assyrian side and accept Assyrian
overlordship.
This Isaiah opposed vehemently. He may well have felt that Assyrian
overlordship would mean the ascendancy of Assyrian religious practices
and the persecution of the nationalistic Yahvists (as in fact came to
pass a half century later in the reign of Manasseh) and he argued
hard for a go-it-alone policy, promising God's help.
Isaiah 7:11. Ask thee a sign of the Lord . . .
Isaiah 7:12. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt
the Lord.
The word "tempt" is translated as "test" in the Revised Standard
Version. Ahaz, in refusing to ask God to meet some test, is technically
correct since the Bible on more than one occasion makes it plain that
it is not for man to imagine he can make God jump through hoops
on demand. Besides, Ahaz has undoubtedly made up his mind and
is anxious to end the interview.
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Isaiah is annoyed, however, and proceeds to advance a sign any-
way:
Isaiah 7:14. . . . Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:16. . . . before the child shall know to refuse the evU,
and choose the good, the land thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of
both her kings.
In other words, in two or three years, before the time when a child,
born in the near future, becomes old enough to exert even the
simplest judgment, the attacking kings shall be defeated. And if this
happens, Ahaz will be forced to realize that Isaiah sees clearly and
speaks truly. (And, indeed, three years later, in 732 B.C., Tiglath-
Pileser III took Damascus, executed the Syrian king and permanently
destroyed the Syrian kingdom, while Israel, rendered powerless, was
allowed a limping life for ten more years; see page 375.)
The most interesting part of Isaiah's "sign," however, is the identity
of the child who was to be called Immanuel.
To Christians generally, this is a reference to the virgin birth of Jesus,
but that rests, of course, upon the word translated in the King James
Version as "virgin." In the Hebrew, the word so translated is almah
and this is actually used to refer to a young woman who might or might
not be a virgin. The Hebrew language has a specific word (bethulah)
for "virgin" but that is not used here. The Revised Standard Version
therefore translates Isaiah 7:14 as "Behold, a young woman shall con-
ceive and bear a son . . ."
But let us leave the Messianic aspect of the verse to one side.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the traditional Christian interpreta-
tion of the verse, it must have a more immediate meaning. Isaiah could
scarcely offer to Ahaz, as a sign for the present predicament, the birth
of a child more than seven centuries later.
But what child of his own time can Isaiah be referring to? The
name Immanuel means "God is with us" and this has symbolic mean-
ing in connection with Isaiah's message of the moment. God is with
Judah and will not allow it to be destroyed by Syria and Israel. No
child named Immanuel is, however, recorded as having been bom in
that period of history, or anywhere in the Bible, for that matter. Still,
if the name is symbolic, any other name of equal symbolism might do.
ISAIAH
533
Sometimes it is suggested that the reference may be to Ahaz's own
son, Hezekiah, who was to come to the throne eventually. Since he
was to be one of the three great Yahvistic kings of Judah (the other
two being Jehoshaphat and Josiah) later interpreters tended to apply
flattering verses to him. However, Hezekiah became king in 720 b.c.
and was already an adult at that time:
2 Kings 18:1. . . . Hezekiah the son of Ahaz . . . began to reign.
2 Kings 18:2. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to
reign . . .
This means he was bom in 745 b.c. and at the time of the interview
between Ahaz and Isaiah must have been ten years old and had already
reached an age at which he was capable of making judgments. Hezekiah
is not, therefore, a reasonable choice for Immanuel.
Indeed, if we seek for the simplest and most straightforward solution
to the problem, what seems more likely than that Isaiah's reference to
a young woman is a reference to his own wife. (Isaiah was only twenty-
five at the time and his wife may well have been little more than
twenty.) In fact, immediately after the description of the meeting with
Ahaz, Isaiah records the birth of a second son:
Isaiah 8:3. . . . Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-
shalal-hash-baz.
Isaiah 8:4. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My
father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of
Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.
The name "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" means "haste-spoil, speed-booty."
The reference is to Syria and Israel, which are hastening onward to
become spoil and booty for the Assyrians. And before the child is old
enough to say "mama," the end will come for the northern kingdoms.
Thus, Isaiah says precisely the same things for the predicted child
Immanuel and for the actual child Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The names
are the obverse sides of the coin for Immanuel refers to Judah 's good
fortune and Maher-shalal-hash-baz to Syria's and to Israel's bad fortune.
The names are different but the symbolism is the same and that is
what counts.
It seems perfectly reasonable, then, to suppose Isaiah's own son is the
predicted Immanuel.
Nevertheless, Ahaz followed his own judgment as to the proper
534
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
course and became tributary to Assyria. Isaiah had failed to swing the
Icing to the Yahvist way of thinking, and nothing is heard of the
prophet in connection with specific political events until the Assyrian
siege of Jerusalem a generation later.
The Branch
Some of the writings in the Book of Isaiah expand the prophet's
notion that after some disaster of the future, a remnant of the faithful
would return and build anew. This remnant, purged of the sins that
brought about the disaster, would be ruled by an ideal king:
Isaiah 9:6. For unto us a child is bom, unto us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall
be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:7. Of the increase of his government and peace there
shall be no end . . .
It may be that such rhapsodic praises of an ideal king might have
grown out of odes written in honor of a coronation. In Isaiah's time,
such praises might have been sung in honor of Hezekiah's coming to
the throne in 720 b.c. The phrase "unto us a child is bom, unto us a
son is given" would refer to the coronation process by which a king
becomes an adopted son of the national god (see page 490). The
flattering names given the king and the promise of a reign of perfect
happiness would be the lavish poetic license usually taken on such an
occasion.
Or, alternatively, the ode might have been written in honor of
Josiah, who ascended the throne nearly a century later, in 638 b.c. The
ode might then, because of its poetic beauty, have been placed within
the Isaianic collection.
However, even if the verses originally referred to a specific king such
as Hezekiah or Josiah, the later Jews could not have been satisfied to
read no further meaning into them. Neither Hezekiah nor Josiah had
had truly successful reigns. Hezekiah had survived the siege of Jerusalem
but only just barely and Judah had been devastated. Josiah died in
ISAIAH
535
battle and a generation after his death, the Jewish kingdom was de-
stroyed.
More and more, therefore, the references were taken to stand for
some ideal king who had not yet arisen, who was to come at some
vague time in the future.
The king, of course, would be of the Davidic dynasty; nothing else
seemed possible for only the line of David had ever ruled over Judah,
and it had been promised eternal kingship in the Bible:
Isaiah 11:1. And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of
Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isaiah 11:2. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him . . .
Again this might be the routine flattery applied to a new king such
as Hezekiah or Josiah. The new king is always a flourishing new growth;
the old king always a decayed old one. If, however, the reference is
shifted to an ideal king of the future, the Davidic dynasty might be
viewed as cut down (a stem, or more properly translated, a stump, is all
that is left) and a new and flourishing growth arises out of it.
In the reign of the ideal king all of creation is restored to the kind
of absolute peace one might envision as having originally been found
in the garden of Eden:
Isaiah 11:6. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the
leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion
and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Another such glowing picture of an ideal future, and one even more
frequently quoted, occurs near the beginning of the Book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 2:2. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the
mountain of the Lord's house shall be . . . exalted . . . and all na-
tions shall flow into it.
Isaiah 2:4. .. . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
This vision of an ideal future may have begun to grow before the
eyes of Jews despondent over the reality of a triumphant Assyria in
Isaiah's rime. It grew stronger as the disasters of the Babylonian Exile,
the disappointments of the return from exile, and the horrors of the
536
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Seleucid persecution overtook the Jews. By New Testament times, this
orientation to the future had become the dominant note in Judaism
and was, indeed, responsible for the events of the New Testament
and for the great turning point in human history heralded by those
events.
The ideal future centered about the king of David's line who was to
arise. Kings are anointed with oil as part of the religious ceremony
that makes them king. Therefore kings can be referred to as "the
anointed" and are indeed so referred to in the Bible. Thus, when David
had come upon Saul sleeping and had cut off a portion of Saul's
robe, his conscience forbade him to do more, although self-interest
alone might have counseled a quick assassination:
1 Samuel 24:6. . . . the Lord forbid that I should . . . stretch
forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.
Nor need the term be restricted to kings anointed according to
Yahvistic ritual. Cyrus of Persia is referred to in this manner in the
later portions of the Book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 45:1. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus . . .
The Hebrew word for "anointed" is mashiakh, which is given in
transliterated English as "messiah." More and more, as time passed, and
as the Jewish vision was fixed with increasing fervor on the ideal king
of the future, the term was confined to him. We can therefore speak
of the ideal king as (with a capital) the Messiah.
According to Christian thought, of course, the Messiah is Jesus, and
the word "Branch" in Isaiah 11:1 is taken as a reference to Jesus and
is therefore capitalized in the King James Version. In the Revised
Standard Version, the word is not capitalized.
Cockatrice
In the description of the ideal Messianic kingdom, several ways of
indicating the total absence of danger or harm are to be found. In
each, the trick is to combine the utterly helpless with the completely
harmful. The climax is reached when infants are mingled with serpents.
Isaiah 11 :8. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
ISAIAH
537
The two parts of the verse contain the parallelism that is the essence
of Hebrew poetry, and it may be taken that the Hebrew words trans-
lated as "asp" and as "cockatrice" both signify some venomous serpent.
The asp is, indeed, a small poisonous snake found in Egypt. (Cleopatra
was supposed to have committed suicide by allowing an asp to bite her.)
The cockatrice, however, is something else again. The word may
have originated in medieval times as a form of "crocodile." The croco-
dile, like the serpent, is a deadly reptile. It might almost be viewed as a
gigantic, thick snake, with stubby legs. To Europeans, unfamiliar with
the crocodile except by distant report, the snaky aspects of the creature
could easily become dominant.
Moreover, once "cockatrice" is formed from "crocodile," the first
syllable is suggestive, and the fevered imagination develops the thought
that the monster originates in a cock's egg. This is itself a monstrous
perversion of nature for, of course, cocks are male birds that do not lay
eggs. The egg, thus perversely laid, must, moreover, be hatched by a
serpent, and the product, then, is a creature with a snake's body and a
cock's head.
The cockatrice is pictured as the ultimate snake. It kills not by a bite
but merely by a look. Not merely its venom, but its very breath is
fatal. Because the cockatrice is the most deadly snake and therefore
the king of snakes, or because of the cock's comb which may be
pictured as a crown, the cockatrice is also called a "basilisk" (from
Greek words meaning "little king").
Of course, the Biblical passage in Isaiah (and there are a couple of
other verses in this book and in that of Jeremiah which mention the
cockatrice) cannot be used as evidence in favor of the reality of this
completely imaginary creature. The Hebrew word, translated as "cocka-
trice" in the King James Version, signified no cock-headed serpent
that can kill with a look; it signifies merely a poisonous snake.
In the Revised Standard Version, the word is translated as "adder,"
which is the name of a common European poisonous snake and, it
should perhaps be noted, the only venomous snake to be found in the
British Isles. "Adder" is a much less misleading translation of the
Hebrew term than "cockatrice" is, but in actuality the adder is not
likely to be the actual creature meant by Isaiah. Instead, the homed
viper, a poisonous snake found in the Near East, is the most likely
candidate.
538
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Lucifer
It is not only Jerusalem and Judah that are warned in the Book of
Isaiah concerning the wrath of God. The surrounding heathen nations
are also warned of doom, and first in line is Babylon.
It is easy to suspect that chapters 13 and 14, in which the doom of
Babylon is foretold with savage imagery, is not really Isaianic. In Isaiah's
time, it was Assyria that was the conquering nation and Babylon lay
under its thumb in more devastating fashion than Judah did. The
paean of hatred and scom should, it would be expected, be turned
against Assyria and the new capital that Sennacherib had built at
Nineveh.
On the other hand, a century after Isaiah's time, it was Babylon
under Nebuchadnezzar that was the oppressor. It is reasonably likely,
then, that this passage is of later origin and was possibly composed
during the Exile at a time when Babylon seemed doomed to fall before
the conquering armies of Cyrus the Persian.
Picturing Babylon as already fallen, the writer recites a taunting
poem of sarcastic contempt for the mighty Babylonian monarch now
brought low. In part, it goes:
Isaiah 14:12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of
the morning! . . .
Isaiah 14:13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
heaven . . .
Isaiah 14:14. ... I will be like the most High.
Isaiah 14:15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell . . .
The Hebrew word here translated as "Lucifer" is helel. Literally, it
means "The Shining One," and is thought to refer to the planetary
body we call Venus.
Venus is the brightest of the planets in our sky and, next to the
sun and the moon, the brightest object in the heavens. Because of the
position of its orbit between the earth's orbit and the sun, it is always
seen (from earth) to be fairly close to the sun. When it is in that part
of its orbit that puts it to the east of the sun, it shines out most clearly
after sunset, and sets never more than three hours afterward. It is then
visible only in the evening and is called the evening star.
isaiah 539
On the other side of its orbit, when Venus is to the west of the
sun, the planet rises first and for a short period of time (never more
than three hours), it shines in the eastern sky as dawn gradually
breaks. It is then the morning star.
It is only natural that cultures unlearned in astronomy and not
particularly observant of the heavens would consider the evening star
and the morning star to be two separate bodies. In Isaiah's time, even
the clever Greeks were of this opinion. It was not until two centuries
after Isaiah's time that the Greek philosopher Pythagoras discovered the
two to be the single body that the Greeks then came to call Aphrodite
and the Romans (and ourselves) Venus. It is very likely that Pythagoras
discovered this in the course of his travels in the East (tradition says
he visited Babylonia and it was the Babylonians who were the great
astronomers of ancient times).
Venus, in its moming star aspect, could be called the "daystar" for
its rising heralds the coming of day. It is also the "son of the morning"
for it is only as moming approaches that it is possible to see it. Thus,
the Revised Standard Version translates verse i4:iz as "How art thou
fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning."
The Greeks, in the period when they thought Venus to be two bod-
ies, called the evening star "Hesperos" and the morning star "Phos-
phoros." Hesperos means "west" and it is always in the west that the
evening star appears. Phosphoros means "light-bringer" and it is there-
fore the essential equivalent of "daystar." By the Romans, the Greek
terms were translated directly into Latin. The evening star became
"Vesper" ("west") and the moming star became "Lucifer" ("light-
bringer").
The Hebrew helel is therefore translated as Phosphoros in Greek
versions of the Bible; and as Lucifer in Latin versions.
The use of the term "Lucifer" in connection with the overweening
pride of the Babylonian king is an ironic thrust at the habit of applying
fulsome metaphors for royalty. Flattering courtiers would think nothing
of naming their king the Moming Star, as though to imply that the
sight of him was as welcome as that of the morning star heralding the
dawn after a long, cold winter's night. This habit of flattery is confined
neither to the East nor to ancient times. Louis XIV of France, two
and a half centuries ago, was well known as the Sun King.
The writer of the verses concerning Lucifer ironically described his
54°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
fall from absolute power to captivity and death as the fall of the morn-
ing star from the heavens to Hell.
With time, however, these verses came to gain a more esoteric mean-
ing. By New Testament times, the Jews had developed, in full detail,
the legend that Satan had been the leader of the "fallen angels."
These were angels who rebelled against God by refusing to bow down
before Adam when that first man was created, using as their argument
that they were made of light and man only of clay. Satan, the leader of
the rebels, thought, in his pride, to supplant God. The rebelling angels
were, however, hurled out of Heaven and into Hell. By the time this
legend was developed the Jews had come under Greek influence and
they may have perhaps been swayed by Greek myths concerning the
attempts of the Titans, and later the Giants, to defeat Zeus and assume
mastery of the universe. Both Titans and Giants were defeated and
imprisoned underground.
But whether Greek-inspired or not, the legend came to be firmly
fixed in Jewish consciousness. Jesus refers to it at one point in the
Gospel of St. Luke:
Luke 10:18. And he [Jesus] said ... I beheld Satan as lightning
fall from heaven.
It seemed natural to associate the legend with the Isaianic statement;
indeed, that statement about Lucifer may even have helped give rise
to the legend. In any case, the early Church fathers considered Isaiah's
statement to be a reference to the eviction of the devil from Heaven,
and supposed Lucifer to be the angelic name of the creature who,
after his fall, came to be known as Satan. It is from this line of argu-
ment that our common simile "proud as Lucifer" arose.
Apocalypse of Isaiah
After oracles predicting disaster for a number of individual nations
(Moab, Egypt, Tyre, etc.) are presented, there comes a four-chapter
sequence (chapters 24 to 27 inclusive) in which extreme disaster for
the earth generally is forecast.
These chapters are an example of what is called "apocalyptic" litera-
ture, from Greek terms meaning "to uncover"; that is, "to reveal."
ISAIAH 541
Apocalyptic literature purported, in other words, to describe matters
that could not be known to man except by inspired revelation. Subjects
included in such revelation might be the machinery that controlled the
movements of heavenly bodies; the details of the manner in which the
universe was created; or, most commonly of all, the details of the fate
to befall the earth in the future, particularly the story of the end of
earthly history.
The study of the end of days is called "eschatology," from a Greek
word meaning 'last things." Much apocalyptic writing is eschatological
in nature.
After 200 B.C. apocalyptic writing became very common among Jews.
The situation seemed to call for it.
Before that time, there had been a tendency to consider the return
from the Exile a sort of happy ending of the Biblical story. The Old
Testament, as we have it, almost makes it seem so for the latest of the
authentic historical books in the Jewish canon is Nehemiah, featuring
the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem.
And yet the happy ending seemed to dissolve into nothing; into
worse than nothing, for persecution under the Seleucid Empire rose to a
high pitch after 200 b.c. and the condition of the Jews was suddenly
more miserable than it had been even in the days of Nebuchadnezzar.
The frustration was the greater since the new miseries seemed to be
without cause.
In the time of the old kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the kings and
the people had been periodic idolaters and had been constantly back-
sliding and were therefore viewed as having been properly punished.
After the Exile, however, the Jews had been faithful monotheists, and
had not sinned in the same fashion as the generations before the
Exile had sinned. Why, then, did matters go so poorly and why was
the Seleucid Empire (and, in later centuries, the Roman Empire) so
triumphant in its pagan cruelty?
The theory developed that the earth as a whole had grown so
wicked that, as in the days just before Noah's Flood, it was past saving,
and that it was part of God's scheme to bring all the earth to a destruc-
tion from which only a few of the faithful would be saved.
The writers of such literature found a kind of recompense for present
injustice in the view of a future in which the mighty tyrants of the
earth would be properly punished while the oppressed faithful would be
5^2 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
liberated and brought to joy. God would judge between the good and
the evil in that final day of destruction; even the dead would come
back to life if they were worthy; and there would be the final glorious
rule of God.
In other words, if all were not right now, all would be made right in
the future.
The writers of apocalyptic literature generally ascribed their writings
to some ancient whose name would cany weight and who, for his
holiness, would be considered to have had the whole scheme of history
revealed to him by God. A number were ascribed to Enoch; others were
ascribed to Moses, to Ezra, to Noah, and so on.
At least one rather early apocalypse must have been ascribed to
Isaiah, and successfully so, for it appears in the Book of Isaiah, even
though scholars agree it cannot have been written by him, but must
have been composed some centuries after his death. Chapters 24 to 27
of the Book of Isaiah are commonly referred to as "The Apocalypse of
Isaiah" and that is a good name if it is remembered that it refers to the
book in which it is found rather than the person who uttered it.
The Apocalypse of Isaiah begins with a picture of destruction:
Isaiah 24:1. Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh
it waste, and tumeth it upside down.
It makes veiled allusions, as is common in apocalyptic literature.
After all, since such writings are describing the fall of empires that
are then in secure power, to be too plain in the description would
be to invite an accusation of treason and the inevitable punishment that
would follow. The veiled allusions would be clear enough to the initi-
ated readers. Thus:
Isaiah 24:10. The city of confusion is broken down . . .
Isaiah 24:11. . . . all joy is darkened . . .
Isaiah 24:12. In the city is left desolation . . .
Which is the city of confusion? Clearly, whichever city was acting
the part of tyrant at the time the passage was written. If it were written
in the time of the Exile, it could only mean Babylon and all the readers
would see that at once. Later on, it could be reinterpreted to mean
Antioch, capital of the Seleucid kings, and still later, to mean Rome.
isaiah 543
At every period the oppressed Jews of the time would have no doubt
as to which was "the city of confusion" (or "city of chaos" as the
Revised Standard Version has it), while the authorities, if made aware
of the verse, would find it difficult to prove treason in it.
Another example of circumspect allusion is to be found in a refer-
ence to Moab:
Isaiah 25:10. . . . Moab shall be trodden down . . . even as straw
is trodden down for the dunghill.
Moab is the traditional enemy of Israel from the time of Moses
(see page 183) but it rarely had its independence, or served as a real
danger, after the time of David. Nevertheless, it remained as a person-
ification of all the enemies of the Jews and the readers of Isaiah would
clearly see Moab as standing for Babylon, Antioch, or Rome, depending
on the period in which the verse was read.
At the end of time, the powerful are punished:
Isaiah 24:21. ... in that day . . . the Lord shall punish . . . the
kings of the earth . . .
Isaiah 24:22. And they shall he gathered together as prisoners . . .
and shall be shut up . . .
The oppressed faithful are uplifted:
Isaiah 25:8. ... the Lord God will wipe away tears . . . and the
rebuke of his people shall he take away . . .
The dead faithful shall be resurrected:
Isaiah 26:19. ^fty dead men shall live . . . and the earth shall cast
out the dead.
This verse is good evidence for the lateness of the apocalypse, for
the doctrine of resurrection of the dead reaches its development in the
post-Exilic period, certainly not as early as the lifetime of Isaiah.
God will then put an end to all evil and establish a new order:
Isaiah 27:1. In that day the Lord . . . shall punish leviathan . . .
and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.
Jews will then return from exile (another sign that the passage is to
be dated long after the time of Isaiah) to worship God:
544 ASIMOV S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Isaiah 27:12. . . . in that day . . . ye shall be gathered one by one,
O ye children of Israel.
Isaiah 27:13. . . . and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount of
Jerusalem.
Ariel
After the apocalyptic chapters there is a return to clearly Isaianic
prophecies concerning the immediate problems of his time. Judah had
remained a loyal Assyrian tributary since 735 b.c. and had remained
secure while Sargon destroyed Israel and carried its leaders off into an
exile from which they never returned (see page 378).
But in 705 b.c, Sargon had died and his son Sennacherib had suc-
ceeded to the throne. The various provinces of the Assyrian Empire,
taking advantage of possible confusion, of the possible weakness of the
new king, rebelled at once. Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, who was now
king of Israel, joined in this rebellion by refusing his tribute. For a
while, Judah could do this with impunity for Sennacherib was busy
with other, more important, portions of the Assyrian realm. Judah might
gamble further that Sennacherib might be defeated resoundingly and
that the Assyrian realm might be sufficiently weakened to secure Judah
against all retaliation. Such a thing had happened before.
Isaiah, however, did not think it would happen this time.
Isaiah 29:1. Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David
dweltl . . .
Ariel is variously translated as "the lion of God," "the hearth of
God," or "the fireplace of God," but by whatever translation it is called
it is clearly Jerusalem. Since Jerusalem is the site of the Temple,
upon whose altar sacrifices are burnt (hence "hearth" or "fireplace"),
Ariel might perhaps be most fairly translated as the "altar of God."
Judah's rebellion was carried through partly at the instigation of
Egypt, which was still independent of Assyria, but which feared the
inevitable day when Assyria would attack and, probably, conquer. Only
by keeping the Assyrian realm in periodic turmoil could she hope to
stave off the evil day, and for that purpose, Egypt's wealth was always
ready to be handed out to those who determined policy among the
ISAIAH
545
subject nations of Assyria. Egypt was also constantly ready to promise
military assistance; a useless promise since this was a period in which
Egypt was militarily weak.
Isaiah saw clearly that any reliance upon Egypt was bound to lead
to disaster and (in the King James Version) pictured her, mockingly, as
one who is barely strong enough to do anything.
Isaiah 30:7. For the Egyptians shall help in vain and to no purpose:
therefore have I cried concerning this, Their strength is to sit still.
In this verse, the King James Version translates Rahab as "strength."
The word might also be taken as the usual personification of Egypt,
so that the Revised Standard Version leaves it untranslated and has the
verse read: "For Egypt's help is worthless and empty, therefore I have
called her 'Rahab who sits still.'"
The climax of the Judean rebellion, the siege of Jerusalem by
Sennacherib, is described in four chapters of Isaiah (36 to 39 inclusive)
which virtually repeat the history of that siege contained in three chap-
ters (18 to 20) of the Second Book of Kings.
With
In the course of this middle section of the Book of Isaiah, there is
another piece of apocalyptic writing, describing the end of the old
order and the coming of a new, ideal world. As part of the destruction,
we have:
Isaiah 34:5. For my sword . . . shall come down upon Idumea . . .
Idumaea is the name given to Edom in Greek and Roman times,
and the Revised Standard Version uses "Edom" in its place. Here
again, as in the case of Moab earlier, Edom is not meant merely as itself
but as a representation of heathen oppressors generally.
The desolation that is to befall Edom (the oppressing heathen em-
pires) is described in savage terms. It is to be swept clear of humanity
and given over to all the noxious forms of life from nettles to dragons.
One passage, unnecessarily weakened in the King James Version, is:
Isaiah 34:14. . • • the screech owl also shall rest there . . .
546 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Hebrew word translated here as "screech owl" is lilith and that
is the name given to a monster of the night. It is derived from lilitu,
the name given it in Babylonian mythology and that is itself derived
from the Semitic word for "night." The Revised Standard Version
strengthens the verse by making it read: "there shall the night hag
alight."
(The darkness has always been filled with fearsome things, both in
reality, when mankind had to face the nocturnal predators, and in imag-
ination, when things half-seen in dim moonlight took on menacing
shapes, and sounds from objects unseen rent the soul with fright. We
who now live in a world where artificial lighting has abolished the
dark tend to forget just how frightening the night can be and how
easy it is to people the night with monsters.)
The later rabbis personified the night hag and made her into Lilith,
a beautiful woman who was Adam's wife before Eve was created. He
could not endure her because she was so shrewish (or perhaps she could
not endure him because he was so sober and grave) and they parted.
She became a demon of the night who, according to some stories, joined
with the serpent to bring about the fall of Adam and Eve, and who
is of special danger to children ever since, perhaps because of her rage
at her own childlessness.
The Martyrdom of Isaiah
Nothing is known of the life of Isaiah after the failure of Sen-
nacherib's siege of Jerusalem. Since the first verse of the book mentions
no king later than Hezekiah, it might easily be assumed that Isaiah
died a natural death shortly after the siege and before 692 b.c. when
Hezekiah himself died. This would be a natural event, for Isaiah would
be in his sixties and men do die in their sixties.
Nevertheless, later tradition had it that he lived on into the reign
of Manasseh and that is not impossible. If so, times must have grown
dangerous for the prophet. If Sennacherib had not succeeded in actually
taking and sacking Jerusalem, he had nevertheless taught Judah a pain-
ful lesson. In Manasseh's reign, Judah accepted a completely pro-As-
syrian policy, paying its tribute and remaining a faithful puppet.
The Yahvists, as dangerous nationalists who would certainly bring
ISAIAH
547
ruin upon the nation (so Manasseh would be convinced) with their
inflammatory calls for reliance upon God alone, were suppressed. No
doubt many of the more intransigent were executed:
2 Kings 21:16. . . . Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, tUl
he had filed Jerusalem from one end to another . . .
It is not specified that Isaiah was killed and it is rather unlikely
that he would have been, without its being specifically mentioned.
Besides, Manasseh was only twelve when he came to the throne and it
might not have been tfll well on into his reign that his anti-Yahvist
policies reached their extreme. Isaiah would have had to be quite old
by that time.
But the tradition arose in later times that Isaiah was executed in
Manasseh's time. The legend even goes into the gory detail that Isaiah,
in trying to escape Manasseh's malignant wrath, hid in a hollow tree
and that Manasseh ordered the tree, with Isaiah inside, to be sawed in
two.
About ajo. ico this legend was incorporated into a tale of Jewish
origin called "The Martyrdom of Isaiah."
The legend was sufficiently well known even before its commitment
to writing (at that there may have been earlier written versions that
have not survived) to cast a reflection of itself into the New Testament.
Thus, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the writer is listing the great
deeds of Jewish history, and having reached the time of Joshua, merely
summarizes the rest. In hastily listing the hard fates unflinchingly faced
by the prophets, he says:
Hebrews 11:37. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were
tempted, were slain by the sword . . .
The phrase "sawn asunder" is thought to be a reference to Isaiah.
Second Isaiah
The Book of Isaiah continues after the end of the Sennacherib
chapters— but with a marked and sudden change. The language, style,
and background all shift.
In the earlier chapters, Judah is a kingdom facing destruction and
The New Babylonian (Chaldean) Empire
it is castigated unsparingly by the harsh prophetic tongue. In the later
chapters, Judah is in exile and despair and it is uplifted with lyric
enthusiasm by a prophet promising rescue.
It begins at once:
Isaiah 40:1. Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
Isaiah 40:2. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem . . .
Furthermore, Isaiah speaks now not of Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Sen-
nacherib, but of Cyrus of Persia, who ruled a century and a half after
Sennacherib:
isaiah 549
Isaiah 45:1. Thus saith the Lord ... to Cyrus, whose right hand
I have holden, to subdue nations before him . . .
It is possible to argue, if one is wedded to the literal word of the
Bible, that the Isaiah of Hezekiah's time foresaw the period of the
Exile in great derail, down to the name and deeds of the monarch
who was to establish the Persian Empire and liberate the Jews, and
that he spoke his vision in a style that was altered from what it had
been.
This point of view, however, has no important advocates today. It
is assumed instead that a prophet of the period of the Exile wrote
under the honored name of Isaiah and that, since he was every bit as
great a poet as Isaiah, if not actually greater, his work was included
with that of the earlier prophet in the present Book of Isaiah.
So it comes to pass that the great prophet of the Exile, certainly one
of the great influential voices of history, is doomed to complete
anonymity forever (as far as we can now tell). He can be referred
to only as the "Second Isaiah," or, using the Greek term for "second,"
as the "Deutero-Isaiah."
Cyrus
The Second Isaiah is convinced that the Exile is soon to be broken
and he even sees the one whose worldly hands will be used by God
to break that exile. Cyrus of Persia has, apparently, just taken Ecbatana,
destroyed the Median Empire, and replaced it with the still more power-
ful Persian Empire. This is considered by the Second Isaiah to be the
work of God:
Isaiah 41:2. . . . [God] raised up the righteous man from the
east, catted him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made
him rule over kings?
Cyrus's home province is Persia, which lies east of Babylonia. To the
Jews in Babylonian Exile, he is therefore the "man from the east." Now
that Cyrus has established himself in the royal seat of Ecbatana, he
hovers to the north of Babylonia like a thundercloud and the Second
Isaiah gladly waits his coming:
55<>
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Isaiah 41:25. I [God] have raised up one from the north, and he
shall come . . .
Cyrus conquered Media in 549 B.C. but it was not until 538 B.C.
that he took Babylon. The writings of Second Isaiah seem to fall be-
tween these two dates and can be placed about 540 B.C., or just two
centuries after the call of the First Isaiah.
We have in the views of the Second Isaiah a clear departure from
henotheism (see page 359). The Second Isaiah seems to be certain
that Yahveh is as powerful outside Judah as ever He was inside it. Nor
does he imagine for a moment that the Babylonian gods are stronger
than Yahveh just because the Babylonians had defeated and scattered
Yahveh's people. Instead, he pictures a universal God. He thinks of
Yahveh as not merely the supreme and only God of Israel, but the
supreme and only God of the universe. If Judah was defeated and
destroyed and the Jews were driven into exile that was the action of
none other than God and served the divine purpose. And if the great
heathen conqueror Cyrus appeared on the scene, he too was but an-
other tool in the hand of Yahveh.
The Second Isaiah was even confident that the universality of the
only God was something that eventually all people would acknowledge:
Isaiah 45:14. Thus saith the Lord, the labour of Egypt and mer-
chandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans . . . shall come after thee
. . . and . . . they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely
God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.
The Servant of the Lord
The anonymity of the Second Isaiah might be considered broken by
certain passages in which, just conceivably, he may be speaking of him-
self. The Second Isaiah pictures Israel as particularly serving God's pur-
poses for all the world. He quotes God as saying:
Isaiah 41:9. But thou Israel art my servant . . .
The servant may be meek and passive, but he will hold to God's
law faithfully until all the world comes to accept it:
Isaiah 42:4. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set
judgement in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
ISAIAH 551
But then, at the beginning of the forty-ninth chapter, the Servant
is personified. The Second Isaiah speaks in the first person as though he
himself represents the idealized Israel serving its God. He is discouraged
at the fruitlessness of his efforts:
Isaiah 49:4. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my
strength for nought, and Li vain . . .
God encourages him, informing him (in line with the Second Isaiah's
views as to the universality of Yahveh) that his mission is not for Jews
only:
Isaiah 49:6. . . . I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles,
that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
The Second Isaiah describes the Servant of the Lord as suffering for
his labors; and if he is talking about himself (in an access of self-pity)
it is easy to see that his advanced views on the nature of God might
have been found unacceptable not only by the heathen but by most of
the Jews of the time and that he would therefore have reason to feel
rejected:
Isaiah 53:3. He [the Servant] is despised and rejected of men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: . . . he was despised,
and we esteemed him not.
According to the later Christian view, the picture drawn by the Sec-
ond Isaiah is a prophetic foretelling of the career of Jesus. This would
be, by that interpretation, a new kind of Messianic prophecy. The
Messiah is not pictured as the ideal king of the First Isaiah, who estab-
lishes his power with force and who reigns in glory; but rather as a
prophet, beaten, bruised, and killed, who even in this fashion was,
through apparent total defeat, fulfilling the will of God.
Bel
The Second Isaiah foresees the inevitable destruction of Babylon by
Cyrus and rejoices at the downfall of its idols:
Isaiah 46:1. Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth . . .
Bel is the Babylonian word for "lord," the equivalent of the Phoeni-
cian "Baal." Originally, Bel was the name given particularly to the
55*
ASIMOV's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
important Sumcrian god En-lil, who was a god of the air and sky; a
storm-god originally, like the Greek Zeus or the most primitive concep-
tions of Yahveh. The seat of En-lil 's worship was in the Sumcrian
city of Nippur on the Euphrates, about fifty miles downstream from
Babylon.
When Babylon became powerful and grew to dominate the land
under Hammurabi (see page 69) its local god, Marduk (Merodach to
the Jews) naturally grew, henotheistically, in importance. Marduk assim-
ilated the attributes of En-lil and became the new Bel. (Nippur,
however, remained an important center of worship long after it had
lost its political importance. Religious ritual is just about the most
conservative aspect of human culture.)
The importance of Marduk was emphasized by the creation myth
that originated in Babylon. When Tiamat (the chaotic force of the sea)
threatened the old Sumerian gods, they dared not battle the monster.
It was Marduk, a second-generation god, the son of Ea (a Sumerian
god worshiped particularly at Eridu, near what was then the mouth of
the Euphrates), who dared venture forth into battle. He destroyed
Tiamat and formed the universe out of its remains. With that deed,
Marduk was promoted to supremacy over the older Sumerian pantheon,
a reflection in heaven of the supremacy on earth of Babylon over the
older Sumerian cities.
Of course, when Assyria dominated Babylon, they considered their
own national god, Asshur, to have been the hero of the Tiamat story;
but under Nebuchadnezzar, with Babylon again supreme, Marduk was
also the great god once more. He was Bel-Marduk ("Lord Marduk")
or just Bel.
This was understood by the Jews, for the prophet Jeremiah, in pre-
dicting the fall of Babylon, uses the two names of the god in poetic
parallelism:
Jeremiah 50:2. . . . Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach
is broken in pieces . . .
Nebo (Nabu in Babylonian) was originally a Sumerian god, wor-
shiped at Borsippa, just a couple of miles south of Babylon. He was
viewed as a god of wisdom, who had, for instance, invented writing.
When Babylon became supreme over Sumeria, Nebo was accepted into
the Babylonian system of gods. Because of Borsippa 's closeness to
Babylon, Nebo may have been familiar to them and have been ac-
ISAIAH
553
cepted as a near neighbor of Marduk, so to speak. He was therefore
given an honored place in the pantheon, made the son of Marduk in
the Babylonian mythology, and placed second in power to him. Nebo's
name occurs in that of Nebuchadnezzar.
Beulah
The final eleven chapters of Isaiah seem to strike a lower note than
those that went before and many suggest that the Second Isaiah ends
with the fifty-fifth chapter. Those that follow, then, are thought to have
been written by another and still later hand, the Third Isaiah, or the
Trito-Isaiah.
In these final chapters the return from exile is no longer imminent,
as it is with the Second Isaiah, but seems actually to have taken place.
Where in the Second Isaiah the return is anticipated with jubilation
and seen as the coming of an ideal state, there is disillusion with the
actuality in the Third Isaiah. Idolatry is denounced; and the refer-
ence appears to be to the Samaritans, or to the Jews who had returned
and who were falling in with the practices of those who inhabited the
land. The leaders of the new community are denounced.
However, as is almost always the case in the prophetic books, there is
hope for the future; there is always the idealized state on the horizon.
A new and glorified Jerusalem is envisaged:
Isaiah 60:10. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls . . .
If this verse is taken literally then the walls of Jerusalem had not
yet been rebuilt and the Third Isaiah must be writing about 450 B.C.,
before the coming of Nehemiah. His words would fall about a century
after the Second Isaiah and nearly three centuries after the First.
The new, ideal land is described glowingly and, speaking to the per-
sonified Jerusalem, the writer says:
Isaiah 62:4. Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither
shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called
Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beulah . . .
Hephzibah means "My delight is in her" and Beulah means "Mar-
ried." The picture is of God loving and marrying the land. God and
His people will be united and inseparable. The Revised Standard Vcr-
554
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
sion translates the terms so that the end of the verse reads: ". . . your
land . . . shall be called My delight is in her, and your land Married."
Because of this verse, the "land of Beulah" has come to mean some-
thing very close to heaven and in Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress it
represents a kind of pleasant anteroom in which the pilgrims rest till
they are invited into the Celestial City.
24. JEREMIAH
JEREMIAH • TAHAPANES • RAMAH " SHTLOH ' AHIKAM • SHESHACH * BARUCH •
JEHOIAKIM • ZEDEKIAH • HANAMAH • THE LETTER OF JEREMIAH •
ZEDEKIAH • NEBUZARADAN • GEDALIAH • ISHMAEL • JOHANAN •
PHARAOH-HOPHRA
Jeremiah
The second of the major prophets, chronologically as well as in his
position in the Bible, is Jeremiah ("Yahveh is exalted"). The book
announces its authorship at once:
Jeremiah 1:1. The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the
priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin.
Jeremiah 1:2. To whom the word of the Lord came in the days
of Josiah ... in the thirteenth year of his reign.
Jeremiah 1:3. ... unto the carrying away of Jerusalem cap-
tive . . .
Since Josiah came to the throne in 638 B.C., the thirteenth year of his
reign would be 626 b.c. and in that year, Jeremiah began a prophetic
mission that was to carry him through more than forty years of tragedy,
to the final fall of Jerusalem and a little beyond. It was a time of
gathering doom, reaching a climax of total disaster, and this is re-
flected in Jeremiah's writings.
There was in Josiah 's time a Hilkiah of importance. Indeed, he was
no less than the High Priest whose discovery of the Book of Deuter-
onomy in the Temple crystallized the reforms of Josiah:
2 Kings 22:8. And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the
scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord . . .
Judah and the Chaldean Empire
JEREMIAH
557
There might be an impulse to think of Jeremiah as the son of this
High Priest, but this is completely unlikely. If he were, he would be
high in the priestly hierarchy. Instead, the first verse makes it plain he
is of provincial origin, a member of a priestly clan of the Benjamite
town of Anathoth, some four miles northeast of Jerusalem.
As it happens, the Bible speaks earlier of a priest who had his hold-
ings in Anathoth. This was Abiathar, the only survivor of the slaughter
at Nob (see page 291) and the last representative of the house of Eli
to hold an official position in the priesthood. After David's death,
Abiathar had supported Adonijah for the succession (see page 320).
When Solomon outmaneuvered Adonijah and established himself on
the throne, Abiathar suffered the penalty for having guessed wrong:
1 Kings 2:26. And unto Abiathar the priest said the king [Solo-
mon], Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields . . .
1 Kings 2:27. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest
unto the Lord . . .
Zadok, who had earlier been associated with Abiathar in the highest
rank of the priesthood under David, now became sole High Priest, and
from him the entire line of High Priests descended, down to the Exile
and even beyond.
Far from being of the High Priestly Zadokite line, then, Jeremiah is
very likely to have been a descendant of Abiathar and, through him, of
Eli, a member of the line that had been displaced by Zadok and
his descendants and that had lived in obscurity at Anathoth for three
centuries as a result.
Jeremiah, like Isaiah, was presumably quite young when he first
received his call. He implies this himself for in describing the call, he
quotes himself as answering:
Jeremiah 1:6. .. . Ah, Lord Godl behold, I cannot speak: for I
am a child.
This might be metaphorical; a modest claim to be only a child in
understanding. However, if he remained an active prophet for forty
years, he must have been a young man at the beginning. If he were
twenty at the time, then he was born in 646 B.C., when idolatrous king
Manasseh (see page 424) had been on the throne nearly half a century.
It would make Jeremiah just about the same age as king Josiah, during
whose reign the call had come.
558
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The call came to Jeremiah at a crisis in history, as it had come to
Isaiah. To Isaiah it came when the Assyrian menace suddenly rose and
overshadowed all else. Now it came to Jeremiah at the time when the
Assyrian Empire was beginning its astonishingly rapid collapse and all
the Fertile Crescent was thrown into confusion.
In 626 B.C., the very year of Jeremiah's call, Asshurbanipal, the last
strong Assyrian king, had died. Rebellions arose everywhere and the
strength of the Assyrian army was no longer sufficient to cope with
them. Invasions of the Cimmerian nomads from the north had kept
Asia Minor in turmoil during Asshurbanipal's reign. They had finally
been very largely destroyed but the effort had stretched Assyrian
strength past its limits.
Now, with Asshurbanipal's death, the Cimmerians, in what proved to
be a last gasp, were raiding southward again, and the distraught As-
syrians, busied with revolts in Babylonia and elsewhere, could do noth-
ing about it. It may have been to these Cimmerian raids that an early
verse in Jeremiah refers:
Jeremiah 1:14. Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all
the inhabitants of the land.
However, the Cimmerians could not take fortified towns and their
relatively undisciplined hordes were most suited to hit-and-run. Their
threat was soon done. Other, far more dangerous threats were to follow.
Tahapanes
The chronology of the Book of Jeremiah is incredibly tangled. The
Anchor Bible, in order to achieve a kind of chronological order, is
forced to shuffle the chapters of Jeremiah, but even so, some passages
which are not dated and which do not refer to events that can be
dated remain puzzling as far as chronology is concerned.
In the second chapter, Jeremiah complains bitterly of Judah's apos-
tasy: of its following after strange gods and its acceptance of idolatrous
customs. This section may therefore come at the beginning of his
ministry, before the reforms of Josiah. (The Book of Deuteronomy was
found in the Temple five years after Jeremiah's call.)
At one point, in describing the misfortunes that befell Judah as a
result of its apostasy, he says:
JEREMIAH
559
Jeremiah 2:16. Also the children of Noph and Tahapanes have
broken the crown of thy head.
Egypt had regained its independence from Assyria in 664 b.c, a
generation before Jeremiah's call, and as Assyria declined rapidly,
Egypt's relative power increased. For the first time in five centuries it
was to play an effective role in international affairs.
The 26th dynasty, which then ruled Egypt, had its power centered
in the delta, in the city of Sais, so that the nation in this period is
spoken of as "Saitic Egypt." Noph is Memphis, the ancient capital of
the delta (see page 63), so that "the children of Noph" makes a logical
metaphorical representation of Egypt.
Tahapanes (spelled Tahpanhes later in Jeremiah, and Tehaphnehes
in the Book of Ezekiel) was a frontier town in the northeast of
Egypt, near the Mediterranean coast and just about at the site of what
is now the Suez Canal. When Saitic Egypt began to face eastward and
to dream of expansion into Asia, Tahapanes was fortified and converted
into a strong base for military operations. It would be the nearest im-
portant Egyptian city to Judah, and the people in Jeremiah's time
would be conscious of it as a representation of Egyptian might.
The verse is interpreted by some as referring to the defeat of Judah
by Egypt in 608 B.C. when Josiah was killed. Surely the king of Judah
might be referred to as "the crown of thy head" by someone addressing
the men of Judah. If so, however, Jeremiah's strictures against apostasy
would be out of place, for Josiah's reform was approved of, in general,
by Jeremiah. Thus, Jeremiah, in addressing the son of Josiah rhetori-
cally:
Jeremiah 22:15. . . . did not thy father ... do judgment and
justice . . .
Jeremiah 22:16. He judged the cause of the poor and needy . . .
If, then, the second chapter relates to a time before Josiah's reform,
2:16 cannot refer to Josiah's death and may merely have the general
meaning of "even the Egyptians are now stronger than you," a scorn-
ful reference to the Egypt that had been weak for so long.
The Greeks called Tahapanes Daphne, and the Anchor Bible uses
the Greek terms for both cities. "The men of Memphis and Daphne,
They too have cracked your skull." Tahapanes is in ruins now but the
mound under which it is buried is called Tel Defenneh, so that the
name lives.
560
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Ramah
Jeremiah might well have been conscious of his descent from the
house of Eli, who had been High Priest at an Ephraimite shrine, for
the northern kingdom of Israel seemed often to come to his mind.
In fact, there is a sympathy for the lost and scattered Israel which
would have been unusual in a Judean, for Judah and Israel were at
war through much of their history. Could it be that some of Jeremiah's
bitterness arose out of a sense of alienation, a feeling that he was a
northerner lost among Judean strangers?
Thus, in his bitter denunciation of Judah (so bitter that such de-
nunciatory speeches are referred to in the English language as "jere-
miads") the prophet compares the land unfavorably to the northern
kingdom. He defends Israel against the standard Judean argument that
the northern kingdom had gone down to Assyrian destruction because
it had drifted away from the Davidic line and the true worship at
Jerusalem, and sacrificed instead at idolatrous altars in Dan and Bethel.
Jeremiah says flatly:
Jeremiah 3:11. And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel
hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
Again, in another passage he weeps over fallen Israel with moving
sorrow:
Jeremiah 31:15. . . .A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and
bitter weeping; Rahel [Rachel] weeping for her children refused to
be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Rachel was the ancestress of the three tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh,
and Benjamin. Whether Jeremiah considered himself an Ephraimite
through his descent from Eli, or a Benjamite through the site of his
family's holdings, he would, in either case, have felt himself a descend-
ant of Rachel.
There were two traditions as to the site of Rachel's grave. One had
her buried in Judah, north of Bethlehem:
Genesis 35:19. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to
Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.
JEREMIAH 561
Another had her buried in Benjamin. Thus, the prophet Samuel
speaks of:
1 Samuel 10:2. . . . Rachel's sepulchre in the border of Benjamin
at Zelzah . . .
The location of Zelzah is unknown, but Jeremiah clearly accepts
the Benjamite tradition and Zelzah may be an alternative name for
Ramah. Ramah is four miles northwest of Jeremiah's home town of
Anathoth and it is there he places the tomb of his ancestress. He pic-
tures her ghost as haunting the place and weeping constantly for the
tribes carried off into permanent exile a century before.
Then, when Jeremiah begs the men of Judah to return to God and
establish an ideal state, he describes such a state as including the re-
turned exiles of Israel:
Jeremiah 3:18. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with
the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of
the north . . .
Shiloh
Jeremiah's consciousness of his northern origin makes him less apt
to accept certain aspects of Josiah's reform. By wiping out all local
religious altars and practices as heathen and idolatrous, Josiah had cen-
tered all worship at the Temple at Jerusalem and there were many who
must have thought that this Temple had magic powers to protect the
city and its people. To Jeremiah the Temple was an institution from
which his own family had been barred, and in his mind was the memory
of an older temple which, in its time, had been just as holy.
Jeremiah denounced the overimportance attached to Jerusalem in his
so-called "Temple Sermon," which he delivered within the Temple it-
self. The Temple Sermon is given early in Jeremiah but is dated in a
passage that is found considerably later in the book:
Jeremiah 26:1. In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the
son of Josiah . . . came this word from the Lord, saying . . .
Jeremiah 26:2. . . . Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and
speak unto all the cities of Judah . . .
562
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The sermon is then given, shortly after the death of Josiah in battle
with Egypt in 608 b.c. The Egyptian armies controlled the land for
the moment but they made no attempt to lay siege to Jerusalem and
take it. It was sufficient for Egypt to rely on their puppet, Jehoiakim,
whom their influence had placed on the throne. (Egypt was far more
concerned with the gathering strength of the Chaldeans under Nabo-
polassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar. They had recently taken Nineveh
and had established themselves as master of the Tigris-Euphrates.)
Undoubtedly, the nationalist element in Judah, ignoring the realities
of the situation, felt that Jerusalem was safe under all circumstances and
against all comers simply because of the existence of the Temple and
of the purification of Temple-worship by the elimination of all com-
peting cults.
Jeremiah, less impressed by the sanctity of the Temple, said:
Jeremiah 7:4. Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of
the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord . . .
He points out that it is not ritualistic worship and reform that will
save Judah, but ethical reform, and quotes God as saying:
Jeremiah 7:9. WUl ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and
swear falsely . . .
Jeremiah 7:10. And come and stand before me in this house . . .
and say, We are delivered . . .
Then, out of his own background he recalls the case of an earlier
temple, the sanctity of which did not keep it from destruction. Jere-
miah quotes God as saying:
Jeremiah 7:12. But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh,
where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it for the
wickedness of my people Israel.
Ahikam
The Temple Sermon got Jeremiah into trouble. As a matter of fact,
he was in continual trouble throughout his life. A prophet could not,
like Jeremiah, constantly predict the most disastrous evils in the most
violent language without making himself unpopular to a populace that
wanted (like all populaces) comfort and reassurance. Jeremiah was an
JEREMIAH 563
annoyance, a gadfly, and there must have been many who would have
been willing to see his mouth shut by force. Unfortunately, the Book
of Jeremiah gives us no detailed chronological account of the opposi-
tion, but there are occasional references in passing. At one point,
Jeremiah quotes his enemies:
Jeremiah 18:18. Then said they, Come and let us devise devices
against Jeremiah . . .let us smite him . . . and let us not give heed
to any of his words.
Jeremiah naturally incurred the wrath of the High Priestly officials,
who, at times, did not hesitate to lay violent hands upon him:
Jeremiah 20:1. Now Pashur . . . who was . . . chief governor in
the house of the Lord, heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things.
Jeremiah 20:2. Then Pashur smote Jeremiah ... and put him in
the stocks . . .
Jeremiah was as unpopular in his home town as in Jerusalem. The
reason is not given but perhaps those at Anathoth were afraid that
Jeremiah's unpopularity might spread to the people of his home town.
They might have felt that by getting rid of him they would remove
themselves from an unpleasant and dangerous spotlight. Jeremiah
quotes God, warning the enemies of his own town:
Jeremiah 11:21. . . . thus saith the Lord of the men of Anathoth,
that seek thy life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of the Lord,
that thou die not by our hand:
Jeremiah 11:22. . . . thus saith the Lord of hosts, Behold I will
punish them . . .
Jeremiah underwent a particularly dangerous moment, however, after
his Temple Sermon, when in the very Temple itself he had warned
Jerusalem of suffering the fate of Shiloh. This naturally outraged the
worshipers, who viewed it as outright blasphemy. The people demanded
he be executed at once. There was recent precedent for such an action:
Jeremiah 26:20. . . . there was ... a man that prophesied in the
name of the Lord, Urijah . . . who prophesied against this city . . .
Jeremiah 26:21. And when Jehoiakim the king . . . sought to put
him to death . . . Urijah . . . fled . . . into Egypt.
564
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jeremiah 26:22. And Jehoiakim . . . sent men into Egypt . . .
Jeremiah 26:23. And they fetched forth Urijah out of Egypt and
brought him unto Jehoiakim . . . who slew him . . .
Nevertheless, there were people of importance who, either because
they agreed with Jeremiah, or feared the consequences of killing a
prophet, pleaded against the execution. They cited the case of the
prophet Micah, who had spoken much as Jeremiah had spoken back in
the reign of Hezekiah a century earlier and who had been left com-
pletely unharmed. One man of influence in particular protected Jeremiah
and kept him from harm:
Jeremiah 26:24. . . . the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was
with Jeremiah, that they should not give him into the hand of the
people to put him to death.
Ahikam had been a high official under Josiah and had been one of
those involved in the reforms under that king:
2 Kings 22:12. And the king [Josiah] commanded Hilkiah the
priest and Ahikam the son of Shaphan . . .
2 Kings 22:13. Co ye, inquire of the Lord . . . concerning the
words of this book that is found . . .
Sheshach
One can well imagine that Jeremiah is frustrated and in despair at
the fact that his denunciations produce enmity and anger, rather than
repentance.
Jeremiah 25:1. ... in the fourth year of Jehoiakim . . .
Jeremiah 25:2. . . . Jeremiah spake . . . saying
Jeremiah 25:3. From the thirteenth year of Josiah . . . even unto
this day, that is the three and twentieth year ... I have spoken unto
you, . . . but ye have not hearkened.
It is now 605 or 604 b.c. and a new crisis is upon Judah. The fall
of Assyria is now complete, and the period of confusion that followed
is almost over. The Chaldeans, ruling from Babylon, have emerged the
winners. In 605 b.c. Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar (who had
JEREMIAH 565
taken Nineveh) defeated Pharaoh-nechoh at Carchemish. The Egyptian
conqueror of Josiah was driven back to the Nile and Egypt's short foray
into Asia was over. Egypt was not to become a conquering power for
three more centuries. Then, in 604 B.C., Nabopolassar died and the
victorious Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne.
Jeremiah judged that under Nebuchadnezzar's forceful leadership
the Chaldeans would drive on toward the re-establishment of empire
over the entire Fertile Crescent, under Babylon now rather than under
Nineveh. Sinful Judah would be given over to the Babylonian con-
queror by God.
Jeremiah 25:8. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Because ye have not
heard my words,
Jeremiah 25:9. Behold, I will send . . . Nebuchadrezzar . . .
against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof . . . and will
utterly destroy them . . .
(Nebuchadrezzar, as the Babylonian king is called here, is also
referred to as Nebuchadnezzar in books written later and even in
other parts of the Book of Jeremiah; as, for instance, in the reference:
Jeremiah 29:1. . . . all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had
carried away captive . . .
It is the latter version, with the "n," that is more familiar to the
average man, perhaps because it is to be found in the popular Book
of Daniel, and which I am therefore routinely using myself. Neverthe-
less, it is the version with the "r" that is closer to the Babylonian
original. The "n" undoubtedly arose through a copyist's error.)
Having predicted Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Judah, Jeremiah
goes on to predict that the people of Judah will go into exile for
seventy years (see page 436), and to describe all the nations that are
to fall to the conquering Babylonians. In this list, the climax comes
with:
Jeremiah 25:26. . . . and the king of Sheshach shall drink after
them.
Sheshach does not refer literally to any kingdom or region; it is
rather an example of a simple code called "athbash" by which some
dangerous reference is made which is clear to the initiated but which
5 66
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
docs not involve the writer in quite as much danger of execution for
treason.
In this code, the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are reversed. The
first letter of the alphabet is replaced by the last, the second letter by
the next to the last, the third letter by the third from the last, and so on.
In Hebrew, the word "Sheshach" is spelled "shin-shin-caph," where
"shin" is the second letter from the end and "caph" is the twelfth letter
from the end. If we reverse this and take the second and twelfth
letter from the beginning, we have "beth-beth-lamed," which is "Babel,"
or "Babylon." In short, Sheshach is the code word for Babylon and
the prediction is that after Babylon conquers a long list of nations it
is Babylon herself who will then be conquered in the end.
That this is so is all the more certain since in a later chapter, in
describing the coming fall of Babylon, "Sheshach" is used as a synonym
in poetic parallelism:
Jeremiah 51:41. How is Sheshach taken! . . . how is Babylon
become an astonishment among the nations]
Baruch
Jeremiah felt it necessary, however, to make a final attempt to per-
suade Judah to change its course from one that promised certain dis-
aster. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, therefore, he states that he was
commanded by God to commit his various utterances to writing:
Jeremiah 36:4. Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah:
and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the
Lord . . . upon a roll of a book.
Baruch, Jeremiah's trusted secretary in the later part of the prophet's
life, remained with Jeremiah till the fall of Jerusalem and after the
fall traveled to Egypt with the prophet. According to one tradition,
however, Baruch did not remain in Egypt but left it after Jeremiah's
death and went to Babylon, where he died in 574 b.c. There is no
Biblical evidence in favor of this, but there is nothing impossible about
it, either.
Based on this tradition, there is an apocryphal book (accepted as
canonical by the Catholics) entitled "The Book of Baruch" and pur-
portedly written by him in Babylon:
JEREMIAH 567
Baruch 1:1. And these are the words . . . which Bantch . . .
wrote in Babylon.
Baruch 1:2. In the fifth year . . . what time as the Chaldeans
took Jerusalem, and burnt it with fire.
Since Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians in 586 B.C., the book
is thus dated 582/581 b.c.
The first half of the book is in prose and consists of a confession
of national sin, making the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of
the people a just punishment for that sin and now pleading for forgive-
ness. The second part of the book consists of two poems, one praising
wisdom after the fashion of the Wisdom of Solomon (see page 515),
and the second promising the consolation of return from exile after the
fashion of the Second Isaiah (see page 548). It seems quite certain that
the book was not written by Baruch but was written long after his
time and is a composite work by different hands, reaching its final form
as late as a.d. 100 perhaps.
Two apocalyptic books ascribed to Baruch were discovered in the
nineteenth century. These are called the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch
and the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, after the languages in which the
manuscripts were written. They seem to be even later than the apoc-
ryphal Book of Baruch.
Jehoiakim
Once bis words were committed to writing, Jeremiah was anxious to
have them reach the king. Apparently, he did not have the easy entry
into the royal presence that Isaiah had, so that he had to work his way
through Temple officials who did have such entry. Unfortunately, after
his Temple Sermon, Jeremiah was forbidden to enter the Temple
grounds and he had to send Baruch.
Jeremiah 36:5. And Jeremiah commanded Baruch saying ... I
cannot go into the house of the Lord:
Jeremiah 36:6. Therefore go thou, and read in the roll . . .
The scroll was read to Temple functionaries, who anxiously told the
king of the matter. The king sent an official for the scroll and had it
read to him.
568
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The men of the Temple seem to have been surprisingly anxious to
forward Jeremiah's words to the king and there may be good secular
reasons for this. The political situation at the moment was particularly
ticklish and for once Jeremiah and the Temple may have been pulling
in the same direction.
Ever since Necho of Egypt had slain Josiah at Megiddo, Judah had
been tributary to Egypt, but now with Babylon in its turn triumphant
over Egypt, there was a question as to whether Judah ought to remain
faithful to Egypt, or to change sides and go over to Babylonia. Each
alternative had its advocates and there was an Egyptian and a Baby-
lonian party in the land. The Temple functionaries, approached by
Baruch, may well have been convinced that Egypt was done, and
could see that as a practical matter the only safe course was to submit to
Nebuchadnezzar. Since Jeremiah was saying the same thing, his writ-
ings were eagerly forwarded to the king.
Jehoiakim, however, was apparently of the Egyptian party, and
there seem to have been strong personal reasons for that.
After Josiah had been killed at Megiddo, the people of Judah
acclaimed his youngest son, Shallum (throne name, Jehoahaz), as
king:
2 Kings 23:30. . . . And the people of the land took Jehoahaz
the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king . . .
But Necho, who now controlled Judah, would not have this. He
preferred his own candidate, one whom he could rely on, and who was
perhaps bound to him by oaths, sworn in return for the kingship. The
Egyptian monarch therefore deposed Shallum and put his older brother
on the throne:
2 Kings 23:34. And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of
Josiah king . . . and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took
Jehoahaz away: and he (Jehoahaz] came to Egypt, and died there.
Jehoiakim was thus beholden to the Egyptian Pharaoh for his
throne. Even if he felt no compunctions at violating any oath of
loyalty he had given, he would very likely have felt that if Nebuchad-
nezzar were to rake over Judah, even through Judah's peaceful sub-
mission, the Babylonian king would be bound to consider Jehoiakim
an Egyptian puppet and therefore untrustworthy. He would do as
Necho had done and place his own man on the throne. Out of pure
JEREMIAH 569
self-interest, then, and quite against the national good, Jehoiakim was
of the Egyptian party.
Furthermore, Jehoiakim could not very well have felt kindly toward
Jeremiah, since the prophet had inveighed against the king personally
and in no polite terms, either. Among the prophet's utterances (which,
presumably, were not included in the scroll to be handed the king,
but which Jehoiakim must have known about) were:
Jeremiah 22:18. . . . thus saith the Lord concerning ]ehoiakim
. . . They [the people] shall not lament for him . . .
Jeremiah 22:19. He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn
and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem,
Therefore, when a courtier named Jehudi read to Jehoiakim the fear-
ful predictions of doom uttered by Jeremiah, Jehoiakim reacted at once
with gloomy wrath.
Jeremiah 36:23. . . . when Jehudi had read three or four leaves,
he [Jehoiakim] cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire . . .
until all the roll was consumed . . .
Jeremiah had Baruch rewrite the scroll, but clearly the pro-Egyptian
course was fixed as far as Jehoiakim was concerned. Even when he was
finally forced to pay cautious lip service to Nebuchadnezzar he felt
unsafe upon the throne and watched for the first opportunity to rebel.
Zedehah
The opportunity came in 601 b.c. when Nebuchadnezzar suffered a
local defeat at the hands of the Egyptians. At once Jehoiakim refused
tribute. It took some time for Nebuchadnezzar's hands to be sufficiently
free to deal with the situation in force, but by 597 b.c, the Babylonian
army was besieging Jerusalem. Jehoiakim died in the course of the siege
and his son Jehoiachin (also referred to in the Bible as Jeconiah and
Coniah) reigned in his place.
Jerusalem was forced to capitulate, however, and then Nebuchad-
nezzar did to Jehoiakim's son what he would have done to Jehoiakim if
that king had survived (and what Jehoiakim would have expected him
to do). Nebuchadnezzar deposed the king and placed his own candi-
date on the throne. Jehoiachin was carried off into Babylonian
57°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
captivity after a reign of only three months and with him was carried
off much of the aristocracy and elite of the nation. What was left
behind was placed under the rule of still another of Josiah's sons:
2 Kings 24:17. And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah . . .
feing . . . and changed his name to Zedekiah.
It is conceivable that Jeremiah might have indulged in the hope, in
the early days of Zedekiah's accession to the throne, that now all
would be well.
The nation, made aware of Babylon's overwhelming power, might
settle down to a quiet subservience and experience peace and prosperity
in the shadow of Nebuchadnezzar, as a century before, under Manasseh,
they had experienced peace and prosperity in the shadow of Esarhaddon
of Assyria. In Manasseh's time, however, king and nation had plunged
deeply into idolatry. Now (so it might have seemed to Jeremiah), with
the experience of Babylonian devastation, the nation would turn to
God and cleanse itself. Then a mollified Yahveh would forgive His
people, destroy Babylon, and establish an ideal state in Judah.
All this (just possibly) may have been in Jeremiah's mind in
connection with the following verses:
Jeremiah 23:5. Behold, the days come . . . that . . . a King shall
reign and prosper . . .
Jeremiah 23:6. In his days ]udah shall be saved . . . and this is
his name whereby he shall be called, the Lord Our Righteousness.
The Lord Our Righteousness is, in Hebrew, Yahveh-tsidkenu, whereas
Zedekiah is, in Hebrew, "Tsidkiahu" and means "Righteous is Yahveh."
One name is the inverse of the other.
These verses in Jeremiah are usually taken to be Messianic in nature
and to speak of an ideal king in the indefinite future. Nevertheless, it is
at least conceivable that the reference is to the new king, who had taken
the throne name of "Righteous is Yahveh."
Hananiah
If Jeremiah had hopes of peace and recovery, they were quickly
blasted. The Egyptian party in Jerusalem remained strong. At every
word of disorder anywhere in the Babylonian dominions, their hopes
JEREMIAH 571
rose and Zedekiah let himself be swayed by the public feeling against
Babylon. Judah tried, foolishly, to form a coalition of neighboring states
against Babylon, when all of them together were no match for Nebu-
chadnezzar. They further attempted to get promises of help from Egypt,
a nation which always promised, but somehow never delivered.
In Egypt, Necho had died in 593 b.c. and had been succeeded by
Psamtik II. Psamtik welcomed into the land various Jewish exiles who,
in the unsettled times, felt it safer to flee westward. He even formed a
contingent of Jewish soldiers to fight in his armies. Naturally he could
not trust such a contingent on the northeastern front where they might
have to fight other Jews and might therefore change sides.
Instead, he placed them on the southern frontier, notably on
Elephantine, an island in the Nile River, just south of the first
cataract (near the southern border of modern Egypt). There they
would serve to guard against raiders striking northward from Ethiopia.
In 588 b.c. Psamtik II died and was succeeded by Pharaoh-hophra,
whom the Greeks called Apries. It was this Pharaoh who intrigued
with the Egyptian party in Judah and encouraged Zedekiah to make a
stand against Nebuchadnezzar.
Jeremiah, to dramatize the absolutely suicidal nature of this policy,
made a yoke for himself and wore it, telling everyone who would hear
that Judah should patiently wear the Babylonian yoke as the only
means of survival. Naturally, this seemed an unpatriotic and defeatist
attitude and was not popular with the people, who persisted in their
belief that Jerusalem and its Temple were inviolable, a belief supported
by the announcements of many who claimed to be prophets of God.
(The case of Sennacherib's failure actually to take Jerusalem over a
century earlier and the failure of Nebuchadnezzar to sack the city after
his first siege must undoubtedly have encouraged the prophets in this
view.)
Jeremiah 28:1. . . . in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah
... in the fourth year . . . Hananiah . . . spake ... in the house
of the Lord . . . saying,
Jeremiah 28:2. Thus speaketh the Lord ... I have broken the
yoke of the king of Babylon.
Jeremiah 28:3. Within two full years will I bring again into this
place all the vessels of the Lord's house that Nebuchadnezzar . . .
took away . . .
57*
ASIMOv's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jeremiah 28:4. And I will bring again to this place ]econiah . . .
with all the captives of Judah . . .
And to dramatize this statement Hananiah broke Jeremiah's yoke
to indicate how God would break the yoke of Babylon.
Undoubtedly, this speech, given in Zedekiah's fourth year (594
B.C.), must have been met with the wild approval of the populace.
Even Jeremiah did not quite dare stand against it at that moment, for
he would undoubtedly have been torn in pieces if he had. Instead, he
went along with the jubilant crowd:
Jeremiah 28:6. Even the prophet ]eremiah said, Amen: the
Lord do so: the Lord perform thy words . . .
It was only afterward, when the mob had dispersed, that Jeremiah
could safely announce that Hananiah was a false prophet, pandering to
the nationalist hopes of the people.
The Bible records that he predicted Hananiah's death for false
prophecy and that Hananiah died within two months. Nevertheless, it
is plain that the people of Judah preferred to believe the flattering,
hopeful words of Hananiah rather than the doleful, hopeless words of
Jeremiah.
The Letter of Jeremiah
The nationalist agitation within Judah had an echo in Babylon.
Undoubtedly, numbers of the exiles believed that God was about to
destroy Babylon, as some prophets were predicting, and were ready to
rise in revolt. News of this agitated Jeremiah.
The exile of 597 b.c. had drawn off the leaders of Judah, its crafts-
men, its intellectuals. Bitterly, Jeremiah had referred to this in a
parable of figs:
Jeremiah 24:1. The Lord shewed me . . . two baskets of figs . . .
after . . . Nebuchadrezzar . . . had carried away captive Jeconiah . . .
and the princes of Judah, with the carpenters and smiths . . .
Jeremiah 24:2. One basket had very good figs . . . and the other
basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so
bad.
JEREMIAH
573
Jeremiah then likened the captives to the good figs and those that
remained in Jerusalem to the bad. It is clear that he considered it
would be fatal to have the Babylonian exiles rise in rebellion. They
would only be slaughtered. To Jeremiah, they seemed the hope of the
future. Even if Jerusalem were destroyed, the exiles, he felt, would
someday return to start the nation anew.
Jeremiah therefore took the occasion of a mission to Nebuchad-
nezzar sent by Zedekiah (perhaps protesting his loyalty to Babylon) to
send a message to the exiles:
Jeremiah 29:1. Now these are the words of the letter that
Jeremiah . . . sent from Jerusalem unto . . . all the people whom
Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive . . .
Jeremiah 29:5. Build ye houses . . . and plant gardens . . .
Jeremiah 29:6. Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters
. . . that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.
Jeremiah 29:7. And seek the peace of the city . . .
In Babylon, at least, Jeremiah's views won out. The exiles in Babylon
did make new lives for themselves without abandoning Judaism. They
were allowed to live in peace and in due time (actually less than the
seventy years predicted by Jeremiah) those who wished to do so were
allowed to return to Judah. What's more, those who remained in
Babylon were sufficiently prosperous to lend considerable financial help
to those who returned (see page 437).
Centuries later, in 100 B.C., a short tract was written which purported
to be a copy of the letter that was sent by Jeremiah to the exiles. It is
devoted largely to an argument against idol worship, trying to demon-
strate by a variety of arguments that idols are useless, helpless, the
mere work of men's hands, and so on. It was not accepted as canonical
by the Jews but appears in some Greek and Syriac versions of the
Bible as a sixth and final chapter to the Book of Baruch. It appears,
in this fashion, in the Catholic versions of the Bible, and in the King
James Version of the Apocrypha, where it is titled "The Epistle of
Jeremy." In the Revised Standard Version of the Apocrypha it is
presented as a separate book, made up of a single chapter and called
"The Letter of Jeremiah."
574
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Zedekiah
If the exiles in Babylon were kept in quiet and peace, not so the
Jews in the homeland. By 589 B.C., the pressure of public opinion had
forced Zedekiah into outright rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar and in
588 b.c, Jerusalem was placed under siege by the Chaldean armies,
while the rest of the nation, with the exception of one or two strong
points, was occupied.
Bitterly, Jeremiah predicted that the city would be destroyed if
resistance continued and that the only safety lay in surrender. He
actually urged individuals to surrender if the city as a whole did not do
so:
Jeremiah 21:9. He that abideth in this city shall die by the
sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence: but he that goeth
out, and falleth to the Chaldeans . . . shall live . , ,
Such a statement was naturally viewed by the patriots of Judah as
treason. An advance by the Egyptian army forced Nebuchadnezzar to
lift the siege temporarily and hurry westward to face the Egyptians,
and Jeremiah's forebodings seemed to have been turned to nothing.
Sennacherib, in his time, had had a similar problem (see page 384)
and the siege of Jerusalem at that time had been permanently lifted.
Surely this would happen again. Jeremiah warned the people that this
would not be so. Nebuchadnezzar would return.
Yet Jeremiah seized the brief respite to attempt to make a trip to
Benjamin to attend to his property. He was at once seized by men of the
army and accused of trying to desert to the Chaldeans. He denied it
vigorously but he was not listened to, and was put in prison.
Zedekiah, however, was by no means certain that Jeremiah was the
false prophet he seemed at the moment when the Chaldean siege had
been lifted. He apparently had a sneaking belief in Jeremiah's worth
and consulted him even while he was in prison (but secretly, to avoid
having the nationalists find out).
Jeremiah 37:17. Then Zedekiah the king sent, and took him
[Jeremiah] out [of prison]; and the king asked him secretly . . .
Is there any word from the Lord . . .
JEREMIAH
575
But Jeremiah was obdurate. He predicted only disaster and he was
put back into prison. According to one story, he was put into a
dungeon without food or water, and would have died if Zedekiah had
not been persuaded to take him out at the last minute. One way or
another, however, Jeremiah remained in prison for the duration of the
siege and never stopped predicting disaster and urging surrender.
Still, he held out a long-range hope, for while in prison, he ostenta-
tiously arranged for the purchase of land in his home town as an indi-
cation that the day would yet come when Judah would be Jewish again,
despite the Chaldean devastation; a day when such purchases as he
now made would hold good.
Jeremiah 32:15. For thus saith the Lord . . . Houses and fields and
vineyards shall be possessed again in this land.
Nebuzaradan
The Chaldeans did return to the siege and in 587 B.C., the city was
taken, sacked, and bumed. The walls were broken down, and the
Temple was destroyed. Zedekiah attempted flight but was taken. His
children were executed and he himself was blinded. A second deporta-
tion of Jews was then ordered by Nebuzaradan, captain of Nebuchad-
nezzar's elite troops:
Jeremiah 39:9. Then Nebuzaradan . . . carried away captive into
Babylon the remnant of the people that remained in the city . . .
Jeremiah 39:10. But . . . left of the poor of the people, which had
nothing . . . and gave them vineyards and fields.
Thus, as a result of two successive deportations, one at the beginning
of the reign of Zedekiah in 597 b.c. and one at the end in 586 B.C., the
elite of the nation were carried off. In Babylon, the exiles retained
the essence of Judaism and developed it further. The first five books of
the Bible (the Pentateuch or Torah) were put into written form, and
apparently the Book of Joshua as well.
Back in Judah, however, the poor who remained, lacking religious
sophistication, kept up a form of Yahvism of a more primitive sort.
When, a half century later, Jews from Babylon began to return to
Judah, they considered their own developed version of Yahvism to be
the only true form, and despised and antagonized those already on the
576
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
land. It was only with difficulty, therefore, that they managed to rebuild
the Temple against local hostilities (see page 441).
The Jews never really returned from Babylon en masse. Even after
the rebuilding of the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem, important
communities of Jews remained in the cities of Babylonia. These per-
sisted throughout Biblical times and well beyond. After the destruction
of the second Temple by the Romans in a.d. 70, Babylonia became the
center of Jewish intellectual life for a thousand years.
The Jewish community in Babylonia remained important through
the period of renewed Persian domination which followed after the
decline of the Sclcucid Empire; and for additional centuries after the
conquest of the area by the Mohammedan Arabs. Only in a.d. 1100,
when the area was falling prey to continuing civil wars and to the
dominating power of the comparatively uncivilized Turkish tribes, did
the Babylonian centers of Jewish learning fade, while new centers
appeared in Moslem Spain.
One must not, therefore, think of the Babylonian Exile as merely a
hiatus and a temporary stage in Jewish history. It was of vital importance
to the development of Judaism (and of the two religions that arose out
of it, Christianity and Mohammedanism ) and it was, in some respects,
a permanent exile and the beginning of the Diaspora (a Greek word
meaning "dispersion"). The Diaspora, a name given collectively to the
Jewish communities dwelling outside Judah, continues to this day,
twenty-five hundred years after Nebuchadnezzar's time, even despite
the re-establishment in 1948 of a Jewish nation in the land that had
once been Canaan.
Gedaliah
After the destruction of Jerusalem, Judah was reorganized into a
Chaldean province and a native governor was put over what remained
of its population:
2 Kings 25:22. And as for the people that remained in the land
of Judah . . . over them he [Nebuchadnezzar] made Gedaliah the
son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, ruler.
Gedaliah was the son of the same Ahikam who had on an earlier
occasion saved Jeremiah's life (sec page 564). A brother of Ahikam and
JEREMIAH 577
his son (the uncle and cousin of Gedaliah) had been among those
who had tried to bring Jeremiah's scroll to the attention of Jehoiakim
(see page 567).
Jeremiah 36:10. Then read Baruch ... the words of Jeremiah in
the house of the Lord, in the chamber of Gemariah the son of
Shaphan . . .
Jeremiah 36:11. When Michaiah the son of Gemariah . . . had
heard . . . all the words of the Lord,
Jeremiah 36:12. Then he went down into the king's house . . .
Apparently, the entire family of Shaphan was strongly pro-Babylonian
and of Jeremiah's mind that only through submission to Nebuchad-
nezzar could Judah find safety. Gedaliah was therefore a natural choice
as governor.
After the fall of Jerusalem, Jeremiah, as a well-known spokesman
of the pro-Babylonian point of view, was to be taken care of:
Jeremiah 39:11. Now Nebuchadrezzar . . . gave charge concern-
ing feremiah to Nebuzaradan . . , saying,
Jeremiah 39:12. Take him, and look well to him, and do him no
harm.
Jeremiah 39:14. . . . they . . . took Jeremiah out of . . . prison,
and committed him unto Gedaliah . . . that he should carry him
home,
Ishmael
Gedaliah attempted to re-establish order and to assure the inhabitants
of Judah that they might live peaceably under Nebuchadnezzar. Un-
fortunately, there were elements in opposition to this:
Jeremiah 40:13. . . . Johanan the son of Kareah . . . came to
Gedaliah . . .
Jeremiah 40:14. And said unto him, Dost thou . . . know that
Baalis the king of the Ammonites hath sent Ishmael the son of
Nethaniah to slay thee? . . .
The motives of the Ammonite king are uncertain. Perhaps it was
merely the chance of completing the destruction of the Jewish kingdom
578
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
in memory of the centuries of long hostility. Perhaps he was acting on
behalf of Egypt. The fall of Jerusalem could only have doubled and
redoubled the desperate intrigues of the Egyptians to keep the area in
turmoil and the Chaldeans occupied.
As for Ishmael, he perhaps required no great urging. He is described
as:
Jeremiah 41:1. . . . Ishmael the son of Nethaniah the son of
Elishama, of the seed royal . . .
As a member of the royal family, he might have envisaged the
re-establishment of the kingdom, with Egyptian help, and his own
anointment as king.
Cedaliah was apparently one of those high-minded men who can
believe no evil, and he refused to credit the report. In consequence, he
was assassinated after having remained in office only three months (or
possibly one year and three months).
It was the last straw and after that there was no chance of any
sort of Jewish community in the land.
Johanan
The assassination of Cedaliah had been accompanied by a general
massacre of those faithful to him, and those Jews who escaped must
have been certain that the criminal act of Ishmael would bring down
the final installment of Chaldean vengeance.
This time, it seemed very likely, Nebuchadnezzar would not stop to
distinguish guilty from innocent but would slaughter all alike, and there
seemed no alternative but to flee to the one neighboring land where
the Chaldean arm could not yet reach:
Jeremiah 41:16. Then Johanan the son of Kareah . . . and the
remnant of the people . . .
Jeremiah 41:17. . . . departed . . . to go to enter into Egypt,
Jeremiah 41:18. Because of the Chaldeans, for they were afraid of
them . . .
On the way to Egypt, they passed the home of Jeremiah and asked
his advice. Jeremiah did not depart from his pro-Babylonian policy.
He felt that in Egypt there would be no more safety than in Judah, and
JEREMIAH
579
he may even have thought that a flight into Egypt would be a provoca-
tion to Nebuchadnezzar, that it would look very much like what we
would today call setting up a govemment-in-exile.
Against Jeremiah's advice, however, the group of Jews traveled on
into Egypt. In fact, they forced Jeremiah and Baruch to accompany
them.
This new departure of Jews into Egypt (like the legendary one under
Jacob and Joseph twelve centuries earlier) had important consequences.
The Elephantine colony (see page 571) was probably reinforced and
a form of Yahvism was built up there, complete with a temple. The
Jews of the colony worshiped Yahveh under the name of Yahu, and
picked up elements of Egyptian religion as well. They apparently were
not conscious of the manner in which their religious customs departed
from those that were being developed in Babylon.
In 1903, papyri were discovered on the island and these revealed
that at the time the Temple was being rebuilt in Jerusalem, Elephan-
tine had fallen on bad days. Its temple had been destroyed by the Egyp-
tians and in 407 B.C., they were asking permission of Persian authorities
(who now controlled Egypt) to rebuild that temple. They had pre-
viously applied for help to the newly built Temple at Jerusalem but had
received no answer, since to the Jews at Jerusalem there could be only
one Temple. To them, the Jews at Elephantine were heretics and no
more to be regarded than the Samaritans.
In Greek times, the entry of Jews into Egypt assumed floodlike
proportions. By New Testament times, there were nearly a quarter of a
million Jews along the Nile, and something like one third of Egypt's
capital city, Alexandria, was Jewish.
In New Testament times, the Jews of Egypt were largely Greek in
language and culture. The comparison between the Hellenized Jews of
Egypt and those of Judea must have been something like the compari-
son today between the Americanized Jews of the United States and
those of Israel.
Pharaoh-hophTa
In Egypt, Jeremiah fought against the dilution of Yahvism by
Egyptian practices. His denunciation ended with a thunderous:
580
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jeremiah 44:30. Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will give Pharaoh-
hophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies and into the hand
of them that seek his life . . .
Pharaoh-hophra, who ruled Egypt at the time of the destruction of
Jerusalem, managed to avoid destruction at the hands of Nebuchad-
nezzar, but Jeremiah's prophecy came to pass just the same.
In 569 B.C., seventeen years after the fall of Jerusalem, Pharaoh-
hophra tried to bring under his control a Greek colony established at
Cyrene, on the north African coast, about five hundred miles west of
the Nile. His troops revolted and acclaimed an officer named Aahmes
(Amasis, to the Greeks) as Pharaoh. Troops loyal to Hophra were
defeated by the rebels and Hophra was executed while Aahmes reigned
in his place.
One wonders if Jeremiah was still alive to see the end of Pharaoh-
hophra. He would have been seventy-seven years old then, a not-im-
possible age. However, there is no way of telling. His denunciation of
the Egyptian monarch is his last recorded utterance and there is no
Biblical account of his death.
25. LAMENTATIONS
Jeremiah
The Book of Lamentations consists of five separate poems, each
making up a separate chapter and all dealing with the central theme
of the destruction of Jerusalem and its desolation thereafter. In the
Jewish canon, it is considered part of the third division of the Bible,
the Writings, and it is not included among the prophetic books. The
Hebrew title is taken from the first word. The book begins:
Lamentations 1:1. How doth the city sit solitary, that was fvll of
people . . .
and the Hebrew name is therefore "Ekhah" ("how").
The tradition arose quite early, however, that Jeremiah was the author
of Lamentations and for that reason, the book was placed immediately
after the Book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint and in the various
Christian versions that descended from that. The title of the book in
the English versions is, in full, "The Lamentations of Jeremiah."
The case for authorship by Jeremiah rests, generally, in the fact that
Jeremiah was the most prominent Biblical character to be in Jerusalem
through the period of its great disaster. Then, too, Jeremiah is mentioned
in the Bible in connection with the composition of lamentations, that
form of poetry which bewails a tragedy. When the reforming king
Josiah was brought back dead from the battle of Megiddo:
2 Chronicles 35:25. . . . Jeremiah lamented for Josiah . . .
This particular lamentation cannot be represented by the Book of
Lamentations, of course. For one thing, Jerusalem was not destroyed
until twenty-two years after Josiah's death. For another, Lamentations
does not mention Josiah. The only reference in it to any king is:
Lamentations 4:20. The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the
Lord, was taken . . .
The New Babylonian Empire
and it makes much more sense in the context of the book to suppose
that this is a poetic reference to Zedekiah, Judah's last king.
But it is extremely unlikely that Jeremiah can have been the author
of the book. The mere fact that it is not included in the prophetic
canon in the Hebrew Bible would indicate it was composed rather late.
The five poems do not seem to be by the same hand, the third
chapter in particular seeming different from the rest, and later. Further-
more, the first four poems are acrostics (see page 495), a highly
artificial form, and it doesn't seem likely, somehow, that Jeremiah in his
grief over Jerusalem would sit down to work out, slowly and painfully,
a set of acrostic poems. That rather bears witness to a literary effort
taken on later and in retrospect.
26. EZEKIEL
EZEKTEL • TAMMUZ • TYRUS • ELISHAH • CEBAL • THE PRINCE OF TYRUS •
SYENE ' PATHROS ' COG
Ezekiel
Ezekiel ("God strengthens") was, apparently, a younger contempo-
rary of Jeremiah, and it is therefore chronologically fitting that his
utterances should follow those of Jeremiah.
Ezekiel 1:1. Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year . . . as I was
among the captives . . . that ... I saw visions of God.
Ezekiel 1:2. In . . . the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity.
Ezekiel, then, had been carried off with Jehoiachin after Nebuchad-
nezzar's first siege of Jerusalem in 597 b.c. The book begins in the
fifth year of that captivity; that is, in 593 b.c. At that time, the kingdom
of Judah still existed, with Zedekiah as its king and with Jeremiah the
prophet warning it, unheeded, of its coming fate.
If by "the thirtieth year" Ezekiel means that he is in the thirtieth
year of his life (something that is not at all certain) then he was
carried off to Babylon in his twenty-fifth year and he was bom in
627 b.c, during the reign of Josiah. This would make him some
twenty years younger than Jeremiah and, in fact, he would have been
bom the year before Jeremiah received his call. It is possible that, as
some traditions have it, he may even have been a disciple of Jeremiah.
Ezekiel was a priest, presumably of the line of Zadok, since he shows
himself greatly interested in the minutiae of the Temple service.
Ezekiel 1:3. The word of the Lord came . . . unto Ezekiel the
priest . . . by the river Chebar . . .
5 8 4
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The New Babylonian Empire
The "river Chebar" is one of the larger canals that interlaced the
Babylonian plains. Its name in the original Akkadian was "nar Kabari"
("Grand Canal") and it led from Babylon southeastward to Uruk
(Erech). Somewhere on its shores there was the settlement of Jews of
whom Ezekiel was a prominent and respected leader.
Tammuz
Ezekiel's call is attended by a mystical vision of God, something like
that of Isaiah but attended by greater detail. The prophet is instructed
EZEKIEL 585
to denounce the wickedness of Jerusalem and to proclaim the immi-
nence of its siege and destruction. A year later, Ezekiel does so by
describing visions of the idolatrous practices he claims are being prac-
ticed in the very Temple itself:
Ezekiel 8:14. Then he [God] brought me to the door of the
gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and behold,
there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
In ancient agricultural societies, it was common to personify the
phenomenon of the death of vegetation in the winter (or in the acme
of summer heat) and its rebirth in the spring (or with the coming of
the rains). The personification took the form of a deity who died and
was taken into the underworld, from which he was later rescued by
another deity. It was customary for women to bewail the death of the
deity at fixed times of the year and then to rejoice loudly over the
rebirth and resurrection.
To modem Westerners, the most familiar form of this sort of tale is
found among the Greek myths. This tale tells of Demeter, the Greek
goddess of agriculture, and her daughter Persephone. Persephone is
stolen by Hades, the god of the underworld, and Demeter seeks her all
over the world. While she seeks, all vegetation dies and winter comes
over the world. Eventually, Demeter finds Persephone and a com-
promise is reached. Persephone may stay with Demeter part of the year
and with Hades the rest, and this explains the recurring cycle of growth
and death and growth again.
The Babylonians have a myth of this sort, too; one that long
antedates the Greek version, of course, and goes back, in fact, to
Sumerian days before the time of Abraham. In the Sumerian myth,
Dumu-zi (the name which later became Tammuz) is the brother and
lover of Ishtar, the goddess of earth and sky. Tammuz is killed by a
boar while hunting, or, perhaps, through some thoughtless act of Ishtar,
and must descend into the underworld. Ishtar follows and ransoms him
only with the greatest difficulty. It is for this Tammuz that the women
first wail and then rejoice.
(The Babylonians called the month of the summer solstice Tammuz
in honor of the god and the Jews borrowed the name. This heathen god,
despite Ezekiel, is still honored in the Jewish calendar today, just as
Western calendars contain the month of March, a name used freely by
Jews and Christians alike though it honors the pagan god Mars.)
586
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Tammuz myth spread along with agriculture and always it was
to the women that its rites particularly appealed. After all, in primitive
societies it is the women who are most concerned with agriculture. In
the western half of the Fertile Crescent Tammuz was called "Lord"
(Adonai). This was "Adonis" in the Greek version of the name and
Greek mythology adopted the tale of Tammuz when they told of
Adonis, the young lover of Aphrodite, who was killed by a boar to the
goddess's infinite distress. (And gave us the word "Adonis" to represent
any extremely handsome young man.)
The Israelites undoubtedly worshiped Tammuz and these rites were
popular with the women among them. Indeed, the writers of the final
version of the Book of Judges probably tried to mask the idolatrous
practices of the women by referring to their weeping for Tammuz as
weeping for Jephthah's daughter (see page 246).
Nor has the practice died out completely even today, for the emotions
surrounding the religious ritual in connection with the death and
resurrection of Jesus— Good Friday followed by Easter— owes something
to the millennia in which the god of vegetation died and was rebom
every year.
Tyrus
The first half of the Book of Ezekiel is given over entirely to the
denunciation of Judah and the prediction of disaster for it; all this,
presumably, having been uttered in the near-decade period between the
time of Ezekiel's call and the final destruction of Jerusalem.
Thereafter, Ezekiel turns upon those nations surrounding Judah who
were to share in its destruction at the hands of the conquering
Chaldeans:
Ezekiel 26:1. . . .in the eleventh year . . . the word of the Lord
came unto me saying . . .
Ezekiel 26:7. . . . Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchad-
nezzar . . .
Tyrus is the Greek form of the town we call Tyre (and the word
appears as Tyre throughout in the Revised Standard Version).
EZEKIEL 587
Tyre shared in the troubles suffered by the peoples of the western
half of the Fertile Crescent in the face of the advance of first the
Assyrians and then the Chaldeans. Fortunately for itself, however,
Tyre was on the coast, her citadel being on a rocky island offshore. As
long as her ships controlled the sea she could not be starved out. For
that reason, she could withstand longer sieges than cities like Damascus,
Samaria, and Jerusalem, which could be completely invested. For that
same reason, sieges of Tyre were likely to end in a compromise settle-
ment, with Tyre retaining her integrity.
Thus, at the time Shalmaneser V was laying siege to Samaria (see
page 375), he was also besieging Tyre. The city resisted firmly through
a five-year siege, defeating the ships which the Assyrians used in an
attempt to break her life line. In the end, Tyre agreed to pay tribute to
Sargon, but it retained its self-government.
It continued to pay tribute to the nations which came to power after
the fall of Assyria, but more reluctantly. They shared in the Egyptian-
encouraged intrigues against Babylonia that led to Judah's destruction
and it was quite obvious that Nebuchadnezzar intended to punish
Tyre when he was done with Jerusalem.
Ezekiel's prophecy "in the eleventh year" took place in 587 b.c, when
Jerusalem's fate was sealed and when the forthcoming siege of Tyre was
a sure thing. Ezekiel goes on to predict Tyre's destruction as a
result of this siege and in great detail describes the manner of its
sacking. Indeed, throughout the passage Ezekiel glorifies the Chaldean
armies as though he were a Babylonian patriot. Perhaps he had been
"assimilated" into Babylonian life in this sense for there are no oracles
among his utterances that are against Babylon, only against Babylon's
enemies (including Judah).
This is not so strange a thought, really. As far as we can tell, the
Jewish colonics in Babylonia were well treated; they were allowed the
full practice of their religion; they were allowed to enter into the
economic life of the nation and grow well-to-do. The proof of this is
that when they were finally allowed to return to Judah and rebuild
their Temple, many of them preferred to remain in Babylonia. It
is not at all impossible to imagine a Jew retaining a profound loyalty
to Judaism while feeling a secular patriotism toward a religiously alien
but otherwise benevolent power. American Jews are precisely in that
sort of position today.
588
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Nevertheless, as it turned out, Ezekiel was overenthusiastic in his
pro-Babylonian pride, for Nebuchadnezzar failed after all to sack Tyre.
He maintained his siege for thirteen years, till 573 b.c. (three years
longer than the renowned siege of Troy) and in the end had to come
to a compromise arrangement.
Ezekiel himself had to recognize this hard fact:
Ezekiel 29:17. And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth
year . . . the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
Ezekiel 29:18. . . . Nebuchadrezzar . . . caused his army to serve
a great service against Tyrus . . . yet had he no wages, nor his
army . . .
This statement is dated 571 b.c, the twenty-seventh year of Ezekiel's
captivity, and two years after the siege of Tyre had been lifted. It is the
latest dated statement of the prophet and since his call came in the fifth
year of his captivity, he was active over a period of at least twenty-two
years. If he was thirty years old at the time of his call, he was fifty-two at
the time of this statement.
Elishah
Yet before the passage of time enlightens Ezekiel to the true outcome
of the siege, he composes a long dirge for supposed-fallen, or going-to-
fall Tyre, and in it he recites those places that contribute to the
merchant city's wealth and prosperity in a veritable orgy of geographical
terms, some of which we can no longer surely identify. Thus:
Ezekiel 27:7. . . . blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was
that which covered thee.
There is the possibility that Elishah was a district in Cyprus, an
island in the eastern Mediterranean which had been colonized by the
Phoenicians. Another possibility, however, involves a farther Phoenician
colony, on the northern coast of Africa.
Tradition has it that in 814 b.c, when Joash was on the throne of
Judah, a party of Tynans established a colony near the site of modem
Tunis. Through the centuries, this colony, which came to be known as
Carthage, from words originally meaning "new town," flourished. By
EZEKIEL 589
Ezekiel's time, it dominated north Africa and had established itself in
Sicily.
The traditional leader of the original colonizing party had been a
Tyrian princess named Dido in the Greek and Roman histories, but
that seems to have been her throne name. Her earlier name, according
to those same histories, was Elissa. Could it have been that this name
actually reflects one of the names by which Carthage was known in the
civilized centers of the Fertile Crescent? Is the "Elishah" referred to in
this verse Carthage? If so, it is the only reference to Carthage in the
Bible.
Again:
Ezekiel 27:8. The inhabitants of Zidon and Arvad were thy
manners . . .
Zidon is, of course, Sidon (see page 217). Arvad is an island about
two miles off the Syrian coast, some hundred miles north of Sidon. It
was quite prosperous in Biblical times.
Gebal
Ezekiel goes on:
Ezekiel 27:9. The ancients of Gebal . . . were in thee thy
calkers.
Gebal (the modem town of Jubyl in Lebanon) is on the Phoenician
seacoast about forty miles north of Sidon. In very ancient times, in the
days when the pyramids were being built, Gebal may have been the
most important of the Phoenician cities, but it was eventually eclipsed,
first by Sidon and later by Tyre.
An inscription in the Phoenicians' alphabet (from which all other
alphabets are believed to have descended) has been found in diggings
in that city and has been dated back to before the time of the Exodus.
It may conceivably have been in Gebal that the alphabet was invented.
In later centuries, Gebal was the center of trade in Egyptian
papyrus, which was much valued for book production in Greek and
Roman times. Rolls of papyrus came, therefore, to be called biblia
from the Greek name of the city, which was Byblos. And since in
59°
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Christian times the rolls of papyrus on which the Scriptures were
written came to be the books, they were the "Biblia" par excellence and
to this day we call the holy writings of the Jews and Christians the
"Bible."
And still more:
Ezekiel 27:14. They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs
with horses . . . and mules.
Togarmah is equated with the "Tilgirimmu" mentioned in Assyrian
inscriptions. These are taken to be in horse-breeding country in east-
central Asia Minor.
The Prince of Tyrus
Ezekiel also inveighed against Tyre's ruler and here, at least, his
prophecy did not entirely miss fire:
Ezekiel 28:2. Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus
saith the Lord God . . .
• ■it
Ezekiel 28:7. ... J will bring strangers upon thee . . .
Ezekiel 28:8. They shall bring thee down to the pit and thou shalt
die . . .
The king of Tyre at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's siege was Ithobaal
II. (Ithobaal I, ruling three centuries earlier, had been the father of
Jezebel.)
Ithobaal II did suffer a personal defeat, for by the terms of the final
agreement between Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar, Ithobaal was forced to
abdicate and he and his family were taken off to exile in Babylon (but
not killed, thus falsifying that part of Ezekiel's prediction ) . In Ithobaal's
place, Baal II ruled an essentially independent Tyre that was neverthe-
less careful not to offend Babylon needlessly.
Tyre continued to exist in peace and prosperity under the Persians,
who conquered and supplanted the Chaldeans. Indeed, it was not until
two and a half centuries after Nebuchadnezzar's siege, when a far
greater conqueror, Alexander the Great, laid siege to the city, actually
took it, and sacked it, that Tyre's pride was finally broken. Never" again
would it be able to dispute with empires.
The New Babylonian Empire and Egypt
But it was Egypt which was the real enemy of Nebuchadnezzar.
It had been the force behind the little nations that had tried to with-
stand the Chaldean might. Its gold, its encouragement, even on
occasion its armies, had strengthened them. Now, it alone of the
ancient centers of civilization remained outside the Chaldean Empire.
Somehow, it continued to maintain its independence and Chaldean
frustration seems to be mirrored in the lengthy invectives hurled against
Egypt by Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 29:1. In the tenth year . . .the word of the Lord came to
me, saying,
Ezekiel 29:2. . . . set thy face against Pharaoh . . . and prophesy
against him and against all Egypt:
592 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The prophecy is dated 588 B.C., while Jerusalem was still holding
out, and while Egypt's interference was delaying the fall of that city.
(Ezekiel was certainly no nationalist or he would have been praising
Egypt rather than denouncing it at this time.) Ezekiel's denunciation is
savage:
Ezekiel 29:10. ... I [God] will make the land of Egypt utterly
waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of
Ethiopia.
The word "tower" is apparently an unnecessary translation of the
word Migdol. Various fortified posts might be termed Migdol from the
stone fortresses or towers that would be their most prominent feature.
The Revised Standard Version therefore translates the clause as "from
Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia."
Syene is the Greek name of the place called "Seveneh" in Hebrew.
It is located on the Nile at just about the position of the First Cataract,
with the island Elephantine (see page 571) in the river itself near
there. Ethiopian invaders floating down the Nile in order to raid
Egyptian cities would have difficulties negotiating the rapids at the
First Cataract and might have to bypass it overland. A fortified
Egyptian city at that point would be necessary to ensure Egypt's safety.
Syene and Elephantine mark the effective southern boundary of
Egypt proper in ancient times. They are about 550 miles south of the
Mediterranean. In modern times, Syene is called Aswan, and is notable
for being the site of a huge dam that will back up the waters of the Nile
into a long lake, serving to irrigate millions of acres of desert and
produce much electric power as well. The southern boundary of modern
Egypt lies about 150 miles south of Aswan.
Since Ezekiel's threat is that Egypt will be devastated from end to
end, and since Syene represents its southern frontier, Migdol must be
located on its northern frontier. One guess is that it refers to a town
twelve miles south of the Mediterranean and a few miles east of what
is now the Suez Canal, which the Greeks called Magadalos.
Pathros
Ezekiel predicts that the Egyptians will be scattered and dispersed
through the nations but will experience a kind of partial restoration
after forty years.
EZEKIEL
593
Ezekiel 29:14. And I wUl . . . cause them [the Egyptians] to
return into the land of Pathros . . . and they shall be there a base
kingdom.
Pathros is the name given to "upper Egypt," the portion of the land
south of the delta. The implication is that a portion of Egypt will re-
gain independence to form a weak nation, one that is no longer a great
power.
To be sure, this had happened previously in Egyptian history. When
the Hyksos controlled the delta, for instance, native Egyptian rulers
maintained themselves in Thebes and controDed "Pathros" until they
finally took over aD of Egypt.
This did not, however, happen on this occasion. Nebuchadnezzar did
not conquer Egypt; the Egyptians were not scattered and dispersed;
there was no need for any restoration.
To be sure, in 568 B.C., shortly after the death of Pharaoh-hophra
(see page 580) and the accession of the usurper Aahmes, Nebuchad-
nezzar tried to take advantage of the confusion in Egypt by invading
the land. We know little of that episode but it could not have been the
resounding Babylonian success that Ezekiel had confidently predicted.
Egypt survived with no apparent damage.
Indeed, Aahmes survived to rule for another generation over a
prosperous Egypt. He witnessed the death of Nebuchadnezzar, the
decay of the Chaldean Empire under Nebuchadnezzar's successors, and
the final faD of that empire to Cyrus the Persian. He did not die till
525 b.c., just before Egypt itself was to fall to Cambyses, the son of
Cyrus.
Ezekiel's prophecies might almost be made to fit (if their virulence is
softened) what did befall Egypt at the hands of Cambyses.
Ezekiel 30:15. And I [God] will pour fury upon Sin, the strength
of Egypt . . .
Sin is usually identified with Pelusium, the Greek name for a city on
the Mediterranean coast about seventy-five miles east of the Nile delta.
It served as an Egyptian stronghold guarding against invasions from the
east. When Cambyses marched against Egypt in 525 b.c, he defeated
the Egyptian army at Pelusium and there was little resistance to him
thereafter. The Revised Standard Version has the verse read "And I will
pour my wrath upon Pelusium, the stronghold of Egypt."
594
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
But of course, Egypt was not destroyed even when the Persians did
conquer it at last some half century after Ezekiel's threatcnings, nor
were the Egyptians carried off into exile.
Gog
The last third of the Book of Ezekiel is apocalyptic in nature,
foretelling first a future invasion of Israel by the hordes of a mysterious
ruler from the north; and of their complete defeat:
Ezekiel 38:1. And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
Ezekiel 38:2. Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of
Magog . . . and prophesy against him.
The phrase "the land of Magog" may be an attempt of some later
editor to identify the nation led by Gog. In the genealogical tables of
Genesis, Magog is listed as the second son of Japheth and may simply
mean "the land of Gog" (see page 46). It would make much more
sense to say "set thy face against Magog, the land of Gog" and the
reversal may be a copyist's error.
In either case, the question is: Who is Gog? It is often suggested
that Gog represents Gyges, the founder of the Lydian monarchy, about
a century before Ezekiel's time.
Gyges fell in battle against the hordes of nomad Cimmerians coming
down from north of the Black Sea and devastating Asia Minor in the
reign of Asshurbanipal of Assyria. For decades the nomads remained
the terror of the Fertile Crescent and no doubt, for generations after-
ward, the thought of hordes from the north remained nightmarishly in
the minds of men. Perhaps Gyges, the fighter against the Cimmerians,
was confused with his foe, and Gog came to mean the nomadic in-
vaders in general.
Eventually, "Gog, the land of Magog" was further distorted into the
belief that there were two enemies, Gog and Magog, and that these
would afflict the earth in the final days. They are mentioned in just this
connection in the New Testament in the Book of Revelation:
Revelation 20:7. . . . Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Revelation 20:8. And shall go out to deceive the nations . . . Gog
and Magog, to gather them together to battle . . .
EZEKIEL
595
In the Book of Ezekiel, written before the effect of Persian dualism
on Jewish religious thought, only God is mentioned in connection with
Gog. In Revelation, written long after Persian dualism had permeated
Judaism, it is Satan who inspires them.
The euphony, perhaps, of the names Gog and Magog has caused
them to live on in British legend as a pair of giants bom of daughters of
the Roman Emperor Diocletian (who reigned about nine hundred
years after the time of Ezekiel). Greater-than-life statues called Gog
and Magog have been kept in London. The latest of these, fourteen
feet high, were constructed in 1708, and were destroyed in 1940 during
the bombing of London by the Nazi Luftwaffe.
Following the defeat of Gog, the ideal Israel is established and in his
description of this, Ezekiel launches into a meticulous description of
the structure of the Temple and of the nature of its ritual. This has
served almost as a constitution for the re-established Jewish community
under the Persians, so that Ezekiel is sometimes called "the father of
Judaism."
Ezekiel did not himself survive, in all probability, to witness the fall
of Babylon (he would have had to live to be almost ninety to have
done that), but men such as Ezra carried with them the new spirit of
Ezekiel, and the second Temple was organized in Ezekiel's image.
27. DANIEL
DANIEL * JEHOIAKIM • BELTESHAZZAR • CHALDEANS * FEET OF CLAY •
SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABEDNECO * NEBUCHADNEZZAR • BELSHAZZAR •
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN ' DARIUS THE MEDIAN • THE LITTLE HORN *
THE ANCIENT OF DAYS * GABRIEL " SEVENTY WEEKS • MESSIAH THE PRINCE •
MICHAEL • CRECIA • THE KING OF THE SOUTH • THE SHIPS OF CHITT1M •
SUSANNA • BEL AND THE DRAGON
Daniel
In the various Christian versions of the Bible, Daniel is found after
Ezekiel as a fourth major prophet. Since the events related in the book
supposedly take place during the Babylonian Exile, in the reigns of
Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, it comes, in chronological fitness,
after the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
In the Jewish canon, however, Daniel is not to be found among the
prophets at all, but among the Writings. From this, it might be
presumed that at the time that Daniel was written the collection of
prophetic books had reached their final form and been closed. Since at
least one of the prophetic books (Jonah) had been written as late as
300 b.c, it would seem to follow that Daniel was written after 300
B.C. and could not have been written by the individual who gave the
book its name and who is the hero of its tales.
In fact, the Book of Daniel is probably among the last written of the
Jewish canon and may date from as late as 165 b.c. A few decades later,
and it might not have been allowed into the canon at all, but would
have had to remain in the Apocrypha (where some might argue it
really belongs anyway).
The evidence for this late authorship is manifold. Parts of the book
are written in Aramaic, which seems to place it in a time when Aramaic
had become so much the common speech of the people that Hebrew
DANIEL 597
The New Babylonian Empire
was understood only by the educated. Other subtle facets of the
language used bespeak the Greek period rather than the time of the
Exile.
Where Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel make no anachronistic mistakes
concerning the times supposed to be theirs, the Book of Daniel is
replete with anachronisms as far as it deals with the period of the Exile.
It treats, however, of the Greek period with easy correctness and while
this might be explained by those dedicated to the literal acceptance of
the Bible as a case of prophetic insight, it is odd that Daniel should be
so correct in his view of what was to him the "future" and so hazy about
his view of what was to him the "present." It is easier to believe that
59 8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the writer was a man of Greek times, to whom the Exile was an event
that had taken place four centuries earlier and concerning the fine
details of which he was a bit uncertain.
There is nothing we can say about the Daniel on whom the book of
that name is based except that he must have been a folk hero known
for his wisdom and arcane knowledge. Ezekiel mentions him three
times, in a way which seems to make him an ancient worthy.
Thus, in stressing the fact that God would save only the righteous
out of a sinful city and that not one sinner would be saved for the sake
of those righteous he has God say:
Ezekiel 14:14. Though . . . Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it,
they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness . . .
Daniel is here equated with Noah, who lived at the time of the
Flood, and Job, who lived before the Exodus. Surely Daniel must be
also ancient. It is always the ancient who are reverenced and it
somehow seems implausible that Ezekiel should pass over such names
as Isaiah and Jeremiah and even Elijah in order to mention a con-
temporary, and a younger contemporary at that.
Again, when denouncing Ithobaal of Tyre (see page 590), Ezekiel
says sarcastically:
Ezekiel 28:3. Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no
secret that they can hide from thee:
Clearly, the legendary Daniel was renowned for his wisdom and can
be used as a standard in that respect. Surely, he is not a younger
contemporary of Ezekiel. He is an ancient, borrowed by the writer of the
Book of Daniel, who needed someone who was of both exemplary piety
and of unparalleled wisdom. He therefore took this Daniel and placed
him in the period of the Exile.
We can even see why he was placed in that period. It was going to
be the writer's purpose to denounce the Seleucid Empire, which in the
second century b.c. was persecuting Judaism ferociously. To avoid
charges of rebellion and treason, the writer had to refrain from attacking
the Seleucids directly. By putting the book into a period of past
disaster, he could attack them indirectly. He could make Babylon and
Nebuchadnezzar surrogate villains for Syria and the Seleucids and his
readers would know what he meant while the overlords might have
trouble proving it
DANIEL
599
Jehoiakim
The anachronisms of Daniel begin with the first verse:
Daniel 1:1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim . . . came
Nebuchadnezzar . . . unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
Daniel 1:2. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim . . . into his [Nebuchad-
nezzar's] hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which
he carried into the land of Shinar . . .
The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 B.C., at which
time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 that
Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem the first time (without actually
destroying it). Jehoiakim had died by then and it was his son Jehoiachin
who was given into the hand of the conqueror.
Then, too, "Shinar" is an archaism that no contemporary of Nebu-
chadnezzar would have used. That name (the equivalent of "Sumer")
was used of the land in Abraham's time (see page 48). To the
Hebrews of the Exile, it was Chaldea and the temptation was to push
Chaldea into the past (and speak of Ur of the Chaldees, for instance;
see page 56) rather than pull Shinar forward.
Finally, Nebuchadnezzar is always spelled with the incorrect "n" in
Daniel; and never, as in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which were really
composed in the Exilic period, with an at least occasional "r" to make it
the more nearly correct "Nebuchadrezzar."
Belteshazzar
From among the Jews carried away in this first exile (the same in
which Ezekiel had been carried away; see page 595) a number of the
young men were taken to be brought up with a Chaldean education in
order that they might be given positions at court:
Daniel 1:6. Now among these were . . . Daniel, Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah:
Daniel 1:7. Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names:
6oo
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah,
of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of
Abednego.
The Yahvistic names, in other words, were changed to those involving
the names of Babylonian deities. For instance, Daniel ("God is the
judge") becomes Belteshazzar ("Bel protect his life"), where Bel is
the great Babylonian god, Marduk (see page 552). Similarly, Azariah
("Yahveh helps") becomes Abednego, or, in proper spelling, Abednebo
("servant of Nebo").
Similarly, Hananiah ("Yahveh is gracious") becomes Shadrach
("Aku commands"), where Aku is, presumably, some lesser deity.
Mishael ("who is what God is") becomes Meshach, a word of doubtful
meaning, arising, perhaps, through the conversion by the writer of the
Hebrew name into one that sounds Babylonian to his ears.
The four Jews did well at court, were accepted into royal favor:
Daniel 1:21. And Daniel continued even unto the first year of
Cyrus.
Daniel, in other words, remained in favor till 538 B.C., some sixty
years after he went into exile. If Daniel were eighteen at the time of the
Exile, he would be seventy-eight years old at the fall of Babylon to
Cyrus— a not impossible situation. At least we do not have in this
book the impossibly condensed chronologies we find in Esther (see
page 467).
Chaldeans
Nebuchadnezzar, like Pharaoh in the time of Joseph over a thousand
years earlier, had a dream:
Daniel 2:2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and
the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew
the king his dreams . . .
Daniel 2:4. Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O
king . . . tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the inter-
pretation.
DANIEL 601
The Babylonians, like the Egyptians, were renowned for their magical
powers. Actually, civilization and technology were most highly devel-
oped in those two areas in pre-Greek times and to peoples less highly
developed, the ability to build the pyramids or foretell lunar eclipses
would naturally be taken as a sign of magical adeptness. Undoubtedly,
the learned among the Egyptians and Babylonians were not in the
least averse to allowing the reputation of magic to spread. It enhanced
their own value.
In aftertimes, the very word "Chaldean" (or, as we would say today,
"Babylonian") came to be synonymous with magician, sorcerer, wise
man, or astrologer. Here in verse 2:2, four types of the learned in
magical arts are named, with no feeling that one of them refers to a
nationality rather than a pursuit.
The very use of the word in this sense is another anachronism. In the
time of the Exile, a Chaldean was a mighty and dreaded warrior and
the word is used in this sense in the Book of Jeremiah, for instance.
A later editor of the Book of Daniel may have inserted the phrase
"in Syriack" (that is, "in Aramaic") to account for the fact that
a large section of the book (from this verse on, in fact, to the end of
Chapter 7) is in Aramaic. Actually, there is no reason why the court
officials should speak Aramaic to the king rather than his native
Babylonian; and if they did, there is no real reason why the writer
needs to specify it. Then, too, even if he wanted to quote the wise men
in Aramaic for greater authenticity, there would be no reason to go on
for a number of chapters in that language. Actually, as I said earlier, the
Aramaic is an indication of the late composition of the book and the
inserted phrase is a completely ineffectual attempt to mask that.
Feet of Clay
Unfortunately for the wise men, Nebuchadnezzar could not recall
the dream, and yet he demanded a quick interpretation on pain of
death. Daniel, like a new Joseph, offered to first reconstruct the dream
and then interpret it, and thus save the lives of the magicians. He said to
Nebuchadnezzar:
Daniel 2:31. Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image . . .
Daniel 2:32. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and
his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
602
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Daniel 2:33. His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
Daniel 2:34. Thou sawest . . . that a stone . . . smote the image
upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
Daniel 2:35. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver,
and the gold, broken to pieces . . . and the stone . . . became a great
mountain, and filled the whole earth.
It is from the description of this dream that the common expression
"feet of clay," meaning a weak point in an otherwise strong object,
came into use.
Daniel's interpretation is that Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldean
Empire which he rules is the head of gold.
Daniel 2:39. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior
to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule
over all the earth.
Daniel 2:40. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron . . .
Daniel 2:41. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of
potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided . . .
Daniel 2:42. . . . the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly
broken.
Daniel 2:44. And in the days of these kings shall the God of
heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed . . .
If this were really said in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, it would be
an example of divine prescience indeed; but since it was very likely
said four centuries after the time of Nebuchadnezzar it represents a
schematic description of known history.
The second kingdom "inferior to thee" was, presumably, the Median
Empire, which the writer of Daniel assumes (as can be deduced from a
later passage) to have followed the Chaldean Empire. Actually, it
existed concurrently with the Chaldean, but, though larger in area, the
Median Empire was smaller in wealth, civilization, and military power
and was hence inferior.
The third kingdom "which shall bear rule over all the earth" was
undoubtedly the Persian Empire, which conquered first the Medes and
then the Chaldeans and eventually ruled a vast territory that included
almost all the territories known to the Jews of the time.
Finally, the fourth kingdom "strong as iron" is the Macedonian
DANIEL 603
Empire established by Alexander the Great two and a half centuries
after Nebuchadnezzar's time. The two legs of iron symbolize the fact
that after Alexander's death his empire was broken up and that two of
its large fragments particularly interested the Jews. These were Egypt
under the Ptolemies, and western Asia under the Seleucids. The Ptole-
maic and Seleucid Empires were at more or less constant war with
each other and Judah was torn between them. From 300 to 200 b.c.
Judah was mostly under the tolerant sway of the Ptolemies, but after
200 b.c. it came under the intolerant rule of the Seleucids.
It was in the time of terror and agony under the Seleucids that the
Book of Daniel was written and the stone, a re-established ideal Judah,
that would destroy the Seleucid Empire, consisting as it did of weak
monarchs as well as strong ones (clay mixed with iron), was a reference
to the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids that began in 168 b.c.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
The third chapter of Daniel tells another legend about Nebuchadnez-
zar. He had a huge statue built of himself to which all his subjects
were to grant divine honors. Those who refused were to be burned
alive and, of course, the loyal Jews, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-
nego (Daniel is not mentioned in this chapter for some reason), re-
fused. The indicated punishment was visited upon them:
Daniel 3:23. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach and
Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery
furnace.
The results were not as expected, however. Nebuchadnezzar, on sur-
veying the situation, said:
Daniel 3:25. . . . Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst
of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like
the Son of God.
As it stands in the King James Version, the final phrase, capitalized
as it is, might seem a clear reference to Jesus, but the phrase is not
quite correct. As given in the Revised Standard Version, it reads "the
fourth is like a son of the gods," in other words, like an angel.
To explain this more clearly, perhaps, some later hand composed an
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
additional section intended to be placed immediately after verse 3:23.
It contained a prayer supposedly recited by Azariah (Abednego) within
the furnace and a psalm of praise to God, chanted by the three. This
additional section does not appear in the Jewish canon, but only in the
Apocrypha. It is accepted as canonical in the Catholic Bible.
The section bears the title of "The Song of the Three Holy Chil-
dren" in the King James Version, and "The Prayer of Azariah and the
Song of the Three Young Men" in the Revised Standard Version.
A few prose verses are also included in the section;
Three Holy Children 1:26. Bur the angel of the Lord came down
into the oven . . . and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven;
Three Holy Children 1:27. . . .so that the fire touched them not
at all, neither hurt nor troubled them.
And it was this angel of the Lord, apparently, that the later writer
introduced to make it quite plain that it was an angel that Nebuchad-
nezzar saw, an angel that had performed a miracle.
Clearly, this legend was meant to apply to the time of writing. It was
the Seleucid monarchs, not Nebuchadnezzar, who claimed divine
honors; and it was the Seleucid monarchs, not Nebuchadnezzar, who
threatened the Jews with death for practicing their religion. The writer
was assuring the readers of the ever-present and watchful eye of God.
Nebuchadnezzar
The fourth chapter deals with still another legend of Nebuchad-
nezzar. Again he has a dream and again Daniel interprets it. This time,
the interpretation is that Nebuchadnezzar, unless he forswears his
sins and reforms, is going to be condemned to lose his mind and eat
grass like an ox.
At the end of a year, Nebuchadnezzar in a moment of pride is sud-
denly stricken:
Daniel 4:33. The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebu-
chadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen,
and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were
grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.
DANIEL 605
And he remained so until he repented.
Of course, there is no record in secular history of Nebuchadnezzar
suffering from any such strange malady, and it is in the highest degree
unlikely that he did. It remains only to decide where the writer got the
idea that the great Chaldean conqueror browsed on grass.
One guess is particularly attractive. The Assyrians built statues in
the shape of bulls with human heads and birds' wings to represent
good-luck deities. They are the inspiration of the Biblical cherubim (see
page 148). These were built in front of Sargon's palace and are as
characteristic of Assyria as the pyramids are of Egypt and the pillared
temples of the Greeks. Such figures, or tales of them, must have re-
mained after the Assyrian Empire itself had been destroyed and in
Greek times all kinds of fanciful tales must have been made up to ac-
count for these composite representations. The tale of a Chaldean
monarch who was forced to eat grass like an ox till his hair grew like
eagles' feathers is transparently based on such statues.
Belshazzar
The next incident described in Daniel takes place after the death of
Nebuchadnezzar and, apparently, shortly before the fall of Babylon to
the Persians:
Daniel 5:1. Belshazzar the king made a great feast . . . and . . .
Daniel 5:2. . . . commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels
which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which
was in Jerusalem . . .
Apparently, the writer of Daniel knew of only two kings of Babylon
during the period of the Exile: Nebuchadnezzar the first and Belshaz-
zar, supposedly his son, the second and last. A writer actually living in
the Exilic period or shortly afterward could not have made that mis-
take.
Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C., twenty-four years after the de-
struction of Jerusalem, and was succeeded by his son, Amel-Marduk
(not Belshazzar). Amel-Marduk is referred to in the Bible as the "Evil-
mcrodach" who lightened the captivity of Jehoiachin (see page 306).
In 560 B.C., Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law",
Nergal-ashur-usur (whose name is slurred into Neriglissar by the
6o6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
classical historians). For four years this son-in-law of Nebuchadnez-
zar sat on the throne and it is just barely possible that he is mentioned
in the Bible. Thus, in Jeremiah's description of the fall of Jerusalem,
a list of Nebuchadnezzar's generals is given:
Jeremiah 39:2. . . . the city was broken up.
Jeremiah 39:3. And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in
. . . even Nergal-sha-rezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim . . .
Is it possible that Nergal-sha-rezer is a misspelling of Nergal-ashur-
usur? Can it further be that Nebuchadnezzar bestowed one of his
daughters upon this general, who then, in later years, seized the throne
from his old ruler's weaker son?
Nergal-ashur-usur died in 556 b.c. and was succeeded by his son,
Labashi-Marduk, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, but there was opposi-
tion to him. The opposition proclaimed Nabu-naido ("Nabu is glori-
ous"), who was no relative at all of Nebuchadnezzar. They won out
and Nabu-naido, better known to us as Nabonidus, the Greek version
of the name, sat on the throne as the last king of the Chaldean Empire.
He was to reign seventeen years.
Where, then, is Belshazzar?
Well, Nabonidus was the son of a priest and, apparently, had had a
scholarly upbringing. His chief interest was in religion and in anti-
quarian research. He restored old temples and built new ones. He
searched for old cylinders and inscriptions, dug them up carefully and
reproduced them (performing invaluable services for modem his-
torians).
He was not at all interested in war and neglected the defenses of the
nation.
He therefore associated his oldest son with himself and made him a
kind of viceroy. The burdens of the defense of the empire sat upon that
son's shoulders. His name was Bel-shar-utsur ("Bel, protect the king")
and it is he who, in the Book of Daniel, is known as Belshazzar. He is
not the king but the crown prince, and he is not the son, or any other
relation, of Nebuchadnezzar.
The times were growing dark for Chaldea in the time of Nabonidus
and Belshazzar. It had been in 559 b.c, soon after the assassination of
Amel-Marduk, that Cyrus had inherited rule over the Persian tribes. In
550 b.c, after Nabonidus had been on the throne five or six years, Cyrus
defeated and absorbed the Median Empire and became a world power.
DANIEL 607
The Chaldean Empire faced an overwhelming danger only a dozen
years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar.
The empire formed an alliance with Saitic Egypt and with the na-
tion of Lydia in Asia Minor, but that didn't help. In 546 b.c, Lydia was
crushed by Persia and all of Asia Minor passed over to Cyrus.
Chaldea was next.
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin
In the middle of Belshazzar's feast, at which the holy vessels of the
Temple were being profaned:
Daniel 5:5. . . . came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote
. . . upon . . . the waU of the king's palace . . .
The words were unintelligible to the onlookers, so Daniel, the now
aged interpreter of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams, was sent for. This was
his interpretation:
Daniel 5:25. And this is the writing . . . MENE, MENE, TEKEL,
UPHARSIN.
Daniel 5:26. This is the interpretation . . . MENE; God hath
numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
Daniel 5:27. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and
found wanting.
Daniel 5:28. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the
Medes and the Persians.
The actual meaning of Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin is uncertain.
The words are apparently Aramaean and may represent the names
of weights. Mene is the "mina," which is roughly equivalent to the
modern pound, and Tekel is the "shekel," which is one fiftieth of a
mina, or a third of an ounce. Upharsin is more puzzling. The Revised
Standard Version changes it to "parsin" and it may be a pun on
"Parsa," the native word for what we call Persia. Some think that
Upharsin is a form of a word that originally meant a half shekel.
In any case, an inscription made up of the names of weights might
give the impression of God weighing the worth of Chaldea in compari-
son with Persia and finding Chaldea "wanting" — that is, the lighter of
the two. This is reminiscent of the scenes in the Greek epic, the Iliad,
6o8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
in which Zeus consults the Fates by placing the lots of two fighters in
separate balances of the scale to see which one outweighs the other.
This may be the source of the vision of God weighing Belshazzar in
the balance.
It is this dramatic incident that has given rise to the common phrase
"the handwriting on the wall" to signify a certain indication of immi-
nent disaster even amid apparent success.
Darius the Median
Certainly, what followed the episode was dramatic enough, according
to the Book of Daniel:
Daniel 5:30. In that night was Belshazzar . . . slain.
Daniel 5:31. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being
about threescore and two years old.
It was in 538 b.c. that Gobryas, a general of Cyrus the Persian, led
an army into the city of Babylon and Cyrus was indeed about sixty-two
years old at the time. Babylon itself offered no resistance. Belshazzar,
maintaining a last-ditch struggle at some point outside Babylon, was
slain.
But what is this about Darius the Median? Who was he? No one,
apparently. He arises, apparently, out of the conviction that the four
great empires appeared consecutively: Chaldean, Median, Persian,
Greek (see page 602); whereas actually Chaldean and Median existed
together and both fell to the Persian. The writer's conviction of con-
secutive empires leads him to suppose that Babylon had to fall to a
Mede and that it was only afterward that Cyrus supplanted the Mede.
As for the name Darius, given to the mythical Median conqueror of
Babylon, this must be drawn from the Darius who came to the Persian
throne in 521 b.c, seventeen years after the fall of Babylon, and the
most capable and renowned of all the Persian monarchs.
The rest of the Book of Daniel dates itself sometimes in the reign of
Cyrus, sometimes in the reign of Darius the Mede, and no useful
purpose can be gained from trying to place actual dates to the chapters.
The writer was not describing actual incidents and had no specific dates
in mind.
At one point, he gives the name of the father of Darius the Mede:
DANIEL 609
Daniel 9:1. In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of
the seed of the Medes . . ,
The father of the real Darius the Persian was Hystaspes. If Ahasuerus
is Xerxes I of Persia (see page 463), then he was the son of Darius, not
the father.
The famous story is then told of Daniel being thrown into a den of
lions because he violated an edict (which Darius was tricked into
signing) forbidding anyone to address any petition to anyone but him-
self. Daniel's open prayers to God were construed as a violation of this
edict. Nevertheless, an angel was sent to protect him from the lions and
he remained unharmed. Again, it is the Seleucid monarchs that are
really meant and the reader is assured of Cod's care at all times.
Daniel 6:28. So . . . Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and
in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Thus, Darius the Median is described as being followed by Cyrus the
Persian in line with the writer's mistaken view of history.
The Little Horn
The remainder of the Book of Daniel is a series of apocalyptic visions,
with the facts of human history (as the writer saw them) disguised in
the form of mystic symbolism, presumably to avoid trouble with the
authorities. The first vision described is that of four beasts, represent-
ing the four kingdoms, arising, in succession, out of the sea:
Daniel 7:4. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings . . .
Daniel 7:5. ... a second, like to a bear . . .
Daniel 7:6. .. . another, like a leopard . . . the beast had four
heads . . .
Daniel 7:7. After this . . . behold a fourth beast, dreadful and
terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth . . . and
it had ten horns.
Daniel 7:8. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up
among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the
first horns plucked up by the roots . . .
The first beast is clearly the winged lion that gave rise to the notion
that Nebuchadnezzar ate grass (see page 605) and represents the Chal-
6io
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
dean Empire. The bear is the Median Empire, and the leopard the
Persian Empire. The leopard's four heads are the four monarchs of the
Persians whom the writer will mention again later in the book. The
fourth beast is the Macedonian Empire set up by Alexander the
Great, whose enormous feats of conquest astonished all beholders and
have steadily remained a wonder of history through succeeding ages.
To the writer, that portion of Alexander's empire which came under
the rule of his general Seleucus and his descendants is the important
part, for it is under these Seleucids that the Jews were suffering persecu-
tion. The prime persecutor, in particular, was Antiochus IV, the
eighth reigning monarch of the line, who came to the throne in 175 b.c.
The symbolism of the ten homs and the additional "little horn"
seems clear. Each horn is a king of the Seleucid line and Antiochus
himself is the little horn. He apparently became king only after a short
civil war between rival factions. Antiochus was victorious, uprooting
three horns, leaving seven, and making himself the eighth king.
The Ancient of Days
Daniel then saw the beasts slain before the judgment seat of God:
Daniel 7:9. . . . the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of
days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his
head like the pure wool . . .
The "Ancient of days" is, of course, God, visualized as an old man
since he existed from the beginning of time and even before. The Re-
vised Standard Version removes the effect of "Ancient" as a capi-
talized noun and has the phrase read: "one that was ancient of days
took his seat."
In place of the destroyed beasts, a new kingdom was set up:
Daniel 7:13. . . . behold, one like the Son of man . . . came to
the Ancient of days . . .
Daniel 7:14. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a
kingdom . . . which shall not pass away . . .
It is sometimes suggested that this is a Messianic utterance; that the
fourth kingdom is the Roman Empire and that the Son of man repre-
sents Jesus. (That is why the King James Version capitalizes "Son"; the
DANIEL 6ll
Revised Standard Version does not.) It seems much more likely,
though, that what is meant here is that a new and eternal kingdom is
given to the ideal Jewish state, represented here in the likeness of a man
rather than in the likeness of the beasts that represented the various
heathen and idolatrous kingdoms.
Gabriel
The last five chapters of Daniel are in Hebrew. This may mean that
they were written by a different hand than those that wrote the six
preceding chapters. Or, perhaps, the shift to Hebrew is to further dis-
guise the treasonable meaning of the visions described in those chapters.
Another vision is described. A ram with two horns (Media and Persia)
is destroyed by a goat with one large hom (Macedon under Alexander
the Great). The goat then develops several horns from among which a
little horn appears— again a reference to the Seleucid kings and to
Antiochus IV. The meaning of the vision was explained to Daniel
through supernatural means:
Daniel 8:16. And J heard a man's voice . . . which called, and said,
Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
Gabriel ("hero of God") is a product of the development of the
Jewish view of angels under Persian influence. Gabriel is one of the
four archangels (chief angels) — or of the seven, or twelve, or seventy,
depending on the writer who is working out the mystical interrelation-
ships.
Perhaps because of his role in the Book of Daniel, Gabriel is usually
thought of as God's messenger, explaining divine meanings to selected
human beings. In the New Testament it is Gabriel who explains to
Mary that she is to bear Jesus, and in Mohammedan legends, it is
Gabriel who takes Mohammed to Heaven and dictates the Koran to
him.
In later Jewish legends, intended to fill out the details omitted in the
earlier Biblical books, it was the angel Gabriel who supposedly took on
the guise of a man and directed the young Joseph to the place where his
brethren were pasturing their sheep. Gabriel was also, according to
legend, one of those who buried Moses, and one of those who destroyed
the army of Sennacherib.
6l2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Daniel is the only book in the Jewish canon in which angels are
given names. Elsewhere the names of the angels appear only in the
Apocrypha and in the New Testament. This is another sign of the late
composition of Daniel.
Seventy Weeks
The writer then represents Daniel as considering Jeremiah's predic-
tion that the kingdom of Judah would be restored, presumably in ideal
form, after seventy years from the time of the destruction of the Tem-
ple. In the time of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, it must have seemed to
Jews, generally, that the prophecy was coming true. After all, Jews again
controlled Jerusalem and the second Temple was opened to worship
just seventy years after the destruction of the first Temple (see page
449)-
To later Jews, though, particularly to those living under the Seleucids,
there must have seemed a bitter irony in the prediction. The restored
state of Jerusalem had remained under the firm control of first the
Persians, then the Ptolemies, then the Seleucids. Not only did it never
become the ideal Israel dominating the world, but it was actually being
threatened under the Seleucids with utter extinction. How could all
this be squared with Jeremiah's prediction?
A modification of that prediction had to be made and the writer of
Daniel turned to the mystic lore of numbers. The Jews, like many of
the ancient peoples (even certain of the Greek philosophers), felt there
were all sorts of hidden meaning in numbers and that special num-
bers had special characters.
Seven, for instance, was a number of peculiar significance. This
might be traced back to the seventh day being the Sabbath, but this in
turn seems to be of Babylonian origin, where the seven-day week
rose from the fact that there were seven "planets" in the heavens. Each
of the planets was in charge of a particular day of the week. We still
have a remnant of this in Sunday (the sun), Monday (the moon),
and Saturday (Saturn). In the Romance languages the other days are
similarly identified. In French, for instance, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday are mardi (Mars), mercredi (Mercury), jeudi
(Jupiter), and vendredi (Venus).
But whatever the origin of the special characteristics of seven, to
DANIEL 613
Daniel seven was a sacred number. The seventy yean of Jeremiah
were really seven decades, and might not the sacred significance of that
be increased further by an additional multiplication by seven? Instead
of seventy years, there would be seventy weeks (seventy times seven)
of yean. Gabriel explains this to Daniel:
Daniel 9:24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and
upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end
of sins.
The phrase "seventy weeks" is expanded to "seventy weeks of years" in
the Revised Standard Venion.
Seventy weeks of years, or 490 yean, counting from the destruction
of the fint Temple in 586 B.C., would carry marten to 96 B.C., a date
safely in the writer's future. (As it turns out, of coune, the ideal Jew-
ish state was not established in 96 B.C., either, and that date has no
particular significance in Jewish history.)
Messiah the Prince
Daniel's vision goes into greater detail:
Daniel 9:25. . . . from the going forth of the commandment to
restore and to buUd Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be
seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built
again . . .
Daniel 9:26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be
cut off . . .
One might see in this a reference to Jesus, particularly since the King
James Version capitalizes "Messiah" and "Prince." The Revised Stand-
ard Venion does not, however. The phrase in 9:25 is rendered "an
anointed one, a prince," and in 9:26, "an anointed one." And we must
remember that the writer of Daniel is speaking obscurely, at least to us.
His original readers would have had no trouble.
What the twenty-fifth vene seems to say is that seven weeks of
yean (forty-nine yean) will pass from Jeremiah's prediction, or from
the fall of the fint Temple in 586 b.c. to the coming of an anointed
king who will make it possible to rebuild. A passage of forty-nine yean
(seven times seven, a sacred number indeed) brings us to 537 b.c,
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
which is indeed within a year of the time (538 b.c.) when Cyrus
granted Jews permission to rebuild; and remember that Cyrus is specif-
ically spoken of by the Second Isaiah as one whose hand God holds and
therefore as an anointed king (see page 549).
It is completely reasonable, then, to understand "Messiah the Prince"
to signify Cyrus of Persia. Following Cyrus are sixty-two weeks of
years (434 years) during which Jerusalem exists as a city. At the end of
that time, 104 B.C., "shall Messiah be cut off."
This can't be the same Messiah spoken of in the verse before. In the
first place, four and a third centuries have passed, and in the second,
the first is a prince, a secular leader, and the second is not. The second
is merely "an anointed one"; that is, a High Priest.
As a matter of fact, there was a High Priest in the time that Daniel
was probably written who was a champion of Judaism against the Seleu-
cids and against those Jews who advocated a compromise with Seleu-
cid views. He was Onias III, the son of that Simon II who was praised
so highly by Jesus, son of Sirach (see page 516). Onias III became
High Priest in 198 b.c. When Antiochus IV became king, Onias III
was first deposed, then imprisoned, and finally, in 171 b.c, executed.
This quickly led to the final crisis that brought on a Jewish revolt
against the Seleucids. The killing of Onias III can therefore be looked
upon as a turning point.
It may, therefore, be Onias III who is the Messiah that is cut off,
although the date given in Daniel misses the actual date by sixty-six
years. (However, no one has been able to make the dates given in
Daniel's vision come out both significantly and accurately.)
The peak of persecution that follows on the death of Onias III is
also described:
Daniel 9:26. . . . the prince that shall come shall destroy the city
and the sanctuary . . .
Daniel 9:27. ... /or one week: and in the midst of the week he
shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the over-
spreading of abominations he shall make it desolate . . .
The language as the writer approaches his own time becomes more
carefully obscure. Apparently, he speaks now of the final week— the
seven-year period after the death of Onias III in which Seleucid perse-
cution is at its height— from 171 to 165 b.c.
In the "midst of the week," or in 168 b.c, Antiochus IV took
Jerusalem and pillaged it. He outlawed Judaism and ordered the Tern-
DANIEL 615
pie to be profaned and dedicated to Zeus. Swine were deliberately
sacrificed on the altar in order to subject it to the most vile desecration
possible in the eyes of pious Jews. Such sacrifices were "abominations"
and the Temple was rendered so unclean that it had to be abandoned,
or made "desolate" till it could be cleansed again by painstaking
ritual. These idolatrous sacrifices are sometimes spoken of as "the
abomination of desolation."
The final cleansing and rededication of the Temple did take place
in 165 b.c. at the end of the week of years and Antiochus IV died in
163 B.C.
Michael
In Daniel's next vision, he is helped by a heavenly messenger who
reaches him only after resistance from one angel and help from an-
other:
Daniel 10:13. . . .the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood
me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes,
came to help me . . .
Here we have the late Jewish view that each nation had a guardian
angel of its own (a kind of henotheism reduced to a subsidiary level).
Michael ("who is like God?") is the guardian angel of Judah. The
angel tells Daniel:
Daniel 10:20. . . . now will I return to fight with the prince of
Persia: and . . . lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.
Daniel 10:21. . . . there is none that holdeth with me in these
things, but Michael your prince.
Naturally, in his capacity as the guardian angel of Judah, Michael
is considered by the Jews to be the greatest of the angels. In the legends
concerning the fall of Satan from Heaven (see page 540), Michael is
viewed as the leader of the loyal angels, fighting for God against the
devil. This is mentioned in Revelation:
Revelation 12:7. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his
angels fought against the dragon: and the dragon . . .
Revelation 12:8. . . . prevailed not . . .
Revelation 12:9. And the great dragon was cast out . . . into the
earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
6l6 ASIMOV's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Another mention of Michael and the devil, contending on earth, is
to be found in the New Testament Book of Jude:
Jude 1:9. . . . Michael the archangel . . . contending with the
devil . . . about the body of Moses . . .
Grecia
Daniel is told:
Daniel 11:2. . . . Behold there shall stand up . . . three kings in
Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and . . . shall
stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
The four kings of Persia are foreshadowed earlier by the leopard
with four heads that represented that empire (see page 609). Presuma-
bly, the four kings of Persia are Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes.
That the fourth is Xerxes is indicated by the fact that his famous
expedition against Greece is mentioned.
The King of the South
In guarded language, Daniel is told of the coming of Alexander the
Great and of the breakup of Alexander's empire; then, of the history
of the fragments of importance to Jewish history:
Daniel 11:5. And the king of the south shall be strong . . .
Daniel 11:6. . . . the king's daughter of the south shall come to
the king of the north to make an agreement . . .
The two fragments of importance are Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleu-
cid Empire. Egypt lies to the south and west of Judah, and the Seleu-
cid Empire to the north and east. The "king of the south" refers to
the Ptolemies, and the "king of the north" to the Seleucids.
These verses and those that follow refer to the continuing wars be-
tween the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for the control of what had once
been the land of Canaan. The early Ptolemies were victorious:
6i8
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Daniel 11:7. . . . one . . . shall come with an army, and shall
enter into the fortress of the king of the north . . . and shall prevail:
This probably refers to Ptolemy III, who reigned from 246 to 221 b.c.
and who defeated the Seleucids in what is called the Third Syrian War,
taking all of Syria and even sections of Asia Minor. His reign repre-
sented the peak of Ptolemaic power.
After Ptolemy III, however, a series of weak kings ruled in Egypt:
Daniel 11:15. So the king of the north shall come . . . and take
the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not with-
stand . . .
This very likely refers to Antiochus III, who ruled from 223 to 187
b.c. Under him the Seleucid Empire was at the peak of its power. Be-
tween 201 and 195 b.c, he fought the Fifth Syrian War with Egypt
and took all the Asian coast, including Judah. With that, Judah passed
from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids.
The Ships of Chittim
The rise of Antiochus IV is then described in the most insulting
terms:
Daniel 11:21. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person . . .
he shall . . . obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
Antiochus IV became king in 175 b.c. and in 171 b.c. he launched
another attack on Egypt, against the weak and cowardly Ptolemy VI.
It may be that part of the cause of the Seleucid persecution of the Jews
rested in the fact that the Jews, in all likelihood, were pro-Egyptian in
their sympathies. They had been well treated, by and large, under the
Ptolemies, and Alexandria, the capital of Ptolemaic Egypt, may well
have contained more Jews (and certainly more prosperous Jews) than
Jerusalem itself did. To Antiochus, the attack on Judaism may have
seemed a political necessity. His execution of Onias III in 171 b.c.
(page 614) may have been intended to remove a possible rallying point
against the pro-Seleucid High Priests he had installed in Jerusalem, and
to prevent a rising in his rear while he was busy in Egypt.
Antiochus won his war— but times had changed. There was a new
DANIEL 619
power in the world now; that of Rome. The Roman Republic had no
desire to see any eastern kingdom grow strong enough to dispute over-
lordship of the Mediterranean world. They ordered the victorious
Antiochus out of Egypt, and Antiochus, very much against his will,
had to leave. He could beat the Egyptians but he knew he could not
beat the Romans.
Daniel 11:30. For the ships of Chittim shall come against him:
therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation
against the holy covenant . . .
Chittim is Cyprus (page 201). The writer of Daniel is rather vague
on the geography of the mysterious regions out past the Mediterranean
shores and this would be his way of saying "the ships from the western
islands." Of course, it is the Roman power that he means and this is
the only reference to Rome in the Old Testament.
Antiochus IV, unbearably humiliated by this treatment from Rome,
must have felt the need for some victory, however small, with which to
save his face before his people and himself. No doubt, the Jews were
openly jubilant at the way in which Antiochus had been made to crawl
before the Romans, and this caused him to "have indignation against
the holy covenant" and helped drive him on to occupy Jerusalem and
profane the Temple.
Daniel 12:2. . . . there shall be a time of trouble, such as never
was . . .
• • • •
Daniel 12:7. ... it shall be for a time, times, and an half . . .
■ • • •
Daniel 12:11. . . . from the time that . . . the abomination that
maketh desolate [was] set up, there shall be a thousand two hun-
dred and ninety days.
The reference to "time, times, and an half" is taken to mean one
year plus two yean plus half a year, or three and a half years. And, of
course, 1290 days is also equal to about three and a half yean, and it
did take about that long after the profanation of the Temple before
the Jewish rebels could retake and repurify it
620
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Susanna
The canonical Book of Daniel ends with the twelfth chapter, but
there are, in addition, several short legends told of Daniel, stressing his
wisdom and cleverness. Three of them are included in the Apocrypha
and these are considered canonical by the Catholic Church.
The first is "The History of Susanna," which appears as the thirteenth
chapter of Daniel in the Catholic versions of the Bible.
The book is titled after its heroine, whose name means "lily." It is
what we would today call a detective story and, considering the time of
its composition, it is an excellent one and has been sufficiently popu-
lar, as a result, to make the name Susanna and Susan common among
young ladies even today.
The setting is in Babylon during the Exile:
Susanna 1:1. There dwelt a man in Babylon, called ]oacim:
Susanna 1:2. And he took a wife, whose name was Susanna . . .
Quickly, the two villains are introduced:
Susanna 1:5. The same year were appointed two of the ancients of
the people to be judges . . .
The "ancients," or elders, proved to be wicked, and Jewish tradition
identified them, therefore, with two prophets denounced as false by
Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 29:21. Thus saith the Lord ... 0/ Ahab . . . and . . .
Zedekiah . . . which prophesy a lie unto you in my name; Behold, I
will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar . . .
But since Susanna is generally considered a work of fiction, such an
identification need not be taken seriously.
The two elders lusted after Susanna and tried to seduce her. Her
virtue was proof against their elderly charms and they conspired to
accuse her of adultery, in order to punish her for her refusal. They stated
they had seen her intimate with a young man whom they had not
been strong enough to arrest. The assembly, impressed by the word of
the elders, condemned Susanna to death.
At this point Daniel enters:
DANIEL
621
Susanna 1:45. . . . when she was led to be put to death, the Lord
raised up the holy spirit of a young youth, whose name was Daniel:
Daniel's youth, at the time of this event, has led some old editions of
the Bible to place this story at the beginning of the Book of Daniel
rather than at the end. Certainly there is some sense to this.
Daniel demanded the right to cross-examine the elders separately be-
fore the council. He asked each the name of the tree under which he
had seen the criminal intimacy take place. Each named a different tree
and it was plain that they were lying. Susanna was freed and, pre-
sumably, lived happily ever after, while the elders were put to death for
bearing false witness.
Bel and the Dragon
The two remaining legends of Daniel are combined under the title
of "Bel and the Dragon." These are included as the fourteenth chapter
of Daniel in the Catholic versions of the Bible. Both tales are designed
to show the folly of idolatry.
The tales are laid in the time of Cyrus:
Bel and the Dragon 1:1. And king Astyages was gathered to his fa-
thers, and Cyrus of Persia received his kingdom.
This apocryphal tale is more accurate, at this point, than the canoni-
cal Book of Daniel. Here there is no mention of "Darius the Median."
Astyages was, indeed, the last king of the Medes. He was defeated by
Cyrus, who ruled in his place and who then went on to conquer
Lydia and Babylonia.
In the first short tale, Daniel got into trouble with Cyrus because he
would not worship the idol Bel (or Marduk), to which every day the
Babylonians devoted twelve bushels of flour, forty sheep, and fifty gal-
lons of wine.
Daniel maintained that Bel was a false god, and Cyrus pointed out
how much he ate and drank. Daniel therefore secretly arranged to have
the floor of the room in which the idol stood covered with fine ashes
and the doors sealed after the offerings had been made. The next morn-
ing, footsteps were found in the ashes and it turned out there was a
secret room to which the priests of Bel, with their families, took the
622
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
food and ate it. The priests were therefore killed and the temple
destroyed.
As a matter of fact, the great Babylonian temple of Marduk was in-
deed destroyed by a Persian king, but for strictly secular reasons. It
was Xerxes who razed it in punishment for a Babylonian rebellion
against his rule, and as part of a general sack of the city.
In the second tale Cyrus orders Daniel to worship a dragon (probably
a large snake). Daniel refuses, pointing out that the dragon can easily
be killed, so that it is no god. He then proceeds to feed it a concoc-
tion that kills it.
The king was forced to hand over Daniel to the indignant Babylo-
nians and they threw him into a lion's den. Here, as in the canonical
book, Daniel is saved by divine intervention, but with an added fea-
ture, for another prophet is introduced.
Bel and the Dragon 1:33. Now there was in Jewry a prophet,
called Habbacuc . . .
or, as the Revised Standard Version has it: "Now the prophet Habakkuk
was in Judea."
There was indeed a prophet by that name in Judah, and he was the
author of one of the canonical prophetic books. Undoubtedly, the
writer of Bel and the Dragon meant this Habakkuk, but if so, he missed
out a bit chronologically. Habakkuk was active in the reign of Josiah
and shortly afterward, or over half a century before the time of Cyrus.
He was not likely to be alive at the time of this tale.
But putting this small matter to one side, the prophet Habakkuk
fed Daniel after he was miraculously transported from Judea to Baby-
lon. Daniel was then freed unharmed and once again was triumphant
over all his enemies.
28. HOSEA
HOSEA * JEZKEEL * JAREB * SHALMAN ' DAVID
Hosea
The final twelve canonical books of the Old Testament are twelve
relatively short prophetic works, which, for convenience' sake, were
combined into a single scroll in ancient times. One might therefore
speak of a "book of the twelve."
Indeed, Jesus, son of Sirach, implies just that. In his memorial to
the famous men of Biblical history (see page 516) he goes through
the books of the Bible in order (and thus shows which were accepted
as canonical in the Judea of his day). Having spoken of Isaiah, Jere-
miah, and Ezekiel, the major prophets, he does not list the remaining
prophets separately, but merely says:
Ecclesiasticus 49:10. And of the twelve prophets let the memorial
be blessed . . .
(Be it noted that there is no mention of Daniel, a book very likely
composed after his time.)
The twelve prophets are sometimes called the "minor prophets," not
because their teachings are necessarily unimportant from a religious
standpoint, but simply because their messages are much shorter than
those included under the names of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
The twelve minor prophets do not occur in chronological order,
though this may have been the original intention. Unfortunately, the
traditional period of activity of the individual prophets does not always
agree with the one determined by modem scholarship.
Hosea, who heads the list, is indeed one of the earlier ones of the
twelve, but he is not the earliest He is the only one of the twelve
f)| ASSYRIAN .EMPIRE
HAM ATH
And*
1 \i
t
CTHE
Great SeA
{.MaiitaTWM* Sea)
J J?
f/f KINGDOM Of I *
•' jl / «-'Y | CONTWOttED B Y TfjSET
liner- V
ICaKnpUIP 5YJUIHH
Askkrbt,
PHIUSTIA
Unitr political ortcoiomie
MM of JEROBOAM II
Israel and Judah at the Time of Hosea
HOSE A 62;
to be a man of Israel, a northerner, rather than a man of Judah.
Indeed, although there were northern prophets who, in later times, were
greatly honored by the Jews (Elijah, for instance), Hosca is the only
northerner whose utterances are collected into a formal and separate
book.
That Hosea is a northerner is not specifically stated, but it is deduced
from the fact that virtually all his speeches are addressed to Israel
rather than Judah. In addition, he refers to the Israelite monarch in a
possessive that includes himself:
Hosea 7:5. In the day of our king . . .
The book begins by dating itself:
Hosea 1:1. The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea . . . in
the days of Uzziah, jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of judah, and
in the days of Jeroboam, . . . king of Israel.
This introductory verse is probably by the later hand of a Judean
editor anxious to date the book in Judean terms.
Uzziah became king in 780 b.c. and Hezekiah died in 692 b.c. As
for Jeroboam II, he ruled from 785 to 745 b.c. The book gives clear
evidence of knowledge of the near anarchy that pervaded Israel in the
quarter century between Jeroboam's death and the destruction of
Israel by Assyria. If, then, we were to guess that various parts of the
book represent utterances made between 750 and 720 b.c, Hosea
would have preached from the last years of Jeroboam II to the destruc-
tion of Israel. In Judean terms, that would date him from the final
years of Uzziah through the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz and into the
beginning of the reign of Hezekiah. This would account for the dating
of the first verse and would make Hosea an older contemporary of
Isaiah.
The name Hosea, by the way, is a version of the more correct Hoshea,
the name borne by the last king of Israel.
Jezreel
The first three chapters of Hosea are taken by most commentators
to be autobiographical and to relate the story of Hosea's marriage.
Hosea's wife proved unfaithful but the prophet found he loved her
626
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
anyway and took her back. In this, he discovered a symbolic reference
to God's love for Israel and God's willingness to forgive Israel her
transgressions.
As was true of Isaiah at roughly the same point in history, Hosea
gave his children symbolic names:
Hosea 1:3. ... he went and took Gomer . . . which conceived,
and bare him a son.
Hosea 1:4. And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel;
for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon
the house of Jehu . . .
A century earlier, Jehu had overthrown the reigning house of Omri
and had established himself on the throne (see page 364). The pro-
phetic party had justified this result, since it overthrew an idolatrous
line of kings who were attempting to introduce Tyrian worship, and
who were energetically persecuting the Yahvists. Nevertheless, even the
Yahvist editors of the material in the Second Book of Kings could not
hide the fact that the revolution had been carried through very bloodily
and that Jehu had remorselessly killed a large number of helpless
people.
The murder of an anointed king, regardless of the personal char-
acteristics of that king, is bound to be looked upon with horror by
people taught to believe that the anointment represented the adoption
of the monarch by a deity. This quasi-holy character of the kingship
served to protect kings from assassination down to modern times, and
explains some of the honor produced in conservative minds by the
British execution of Charles I in 1649 and the French execution of
Louis XVI in 1793.
There is bound to be a feeling, therefore, that an act of regicide
will have its consequences, even though these may be delayed. Thus,
Shakespeare, in his historical plays, sees some of the disasters befalling
England in the fifteenth century as being the consequence of the forced
deposition and later murder of Richard II (even though Shakespeare
recognizes him as an unworthy king).
Similarly, there could well have been a feeling in Israel that the
horrors that Jehu carried through in Jezreel (where Jezebel was among
those killed) would come back to haunt his descendants. So far, Jehu,
his son, his grandson, and Jeroboam II, his great-grandson, had reigned
HOSEA
for a century of reasonable peace. Indeed, under Jeroboam II, Israel
reached a peak of power. Nevertheless, Hosea foresees the coming dis-
aster and with the king's death in 740 b.c, that disaster begins. Jero-
boam's son Zachariah succeeds to the throne as the fifth member of
the dynasty of Jehu, but he is assassinated almost at once and then
comes the downward spiral.
The accession of Tiglath-Pileser III to the Assyrian throne in 745
b.c. and the quick evidences that here was a strong, warlike monarch
who was sure to engage in westward aggressions must have made it
clear to Hosea, as to Isaiah, that the time was running out for the little
kingdoms.
Jareb
It seemed to Hosea that even submission to Assyria wound not cure
the general decay sweeping over Israel and Judah:
Hosea 5:13. When Ephraim saw his sickness and Judah saw his
wound, then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to king
Jareb: yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your wound.
There is no Assyrian king named Jareb, so it must be a nickname. It
is associated with a Hebrew word meaning "to strive" or "to fight."
Perhaps it might be translated as "the fighting king" or "the warlike
king" and in either case it is obviously Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria.
The Revised Standard Version translates "king Jareb" as "the great
king," a common title for the king of the Middle Eastern empires of
ancient times.
In the event, Hosea's judgment proved correct. Submission to Assyria
did not save the kingdoms for each rebelled, until the former was
finally crushed by Assyria and the latter by the successor kingdom of
Chaldea.
Shalman
The disaster Hosea predicts is expressed in a number of ways, includ-
ing the very familiar:
628
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Hosea 8:7. For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the
whirlwind . . .
and the less poetic, but more specific:
Hosea 10:14. . . . aU thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman
spoiled Beth-arhel . . .
Hosea 10:15. . . .in a morning shall the king of Israel utterly be
cut off.
Neither Shalman nor Beth-arbel can be certainly identified, nor can
the incident be pin-pointed. Some suggest that Shalman is a king of
Moab, contemporary to Hosea (one such is referred to as Salamanu
in Assyrian inscription) and to some local victory in the Trans-Jordan
which he won just before the time of the prophet's utterance.
Another possibility is that the verse refers to Shalmaneser V, who
succeeded Tiglath-Pileser III in 727 b.c. In this case, Hosea may be
speaking as Shalmaneser is marching to the siege of Samaria and be
referring to a victory won by him en route. It is this siege which led to
the fall of Samaria and the destruction of Israel even (hough Shal-
maneser V did not live to see its conclusion.
David
As is usually true of the prophets, however, Hosea sees beyond the
immediate destruction to an ideal future:
Hosea 3:5. Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and see
the Lord their God, and David their king ... in the latter days.
This sounds as though it was uttered after Sargon's carrying off of
the Israelites into captivity, but of course those exiles never returned.
The mention of David himself rather than a descendant of his may
be simply symbolic, but it may also reflect an early notion among the
Jews, predating the development of the Messianic notion.
It is an attractive idea, for a nation which has experienced greater
times in its past (or imagines it has) sometimes dreams that some
powerful king, whom it magnifies in tradition, is not really dead. Thus,
king Arthur sleeps in Avalon, waiting to return on some day when his
country really needs him. Similarly, the twelfth-century German em-
HOSEA
pcror, Frederick Barbarossa, sleeps under the Kyffhauser mountain, like-
wise awaiting his country's call.
Perhaps, then, this verse is a reflection of a time when Jews expected
the return of David himself.
Of course, it is odd to have a northerner say this. The northern
kingdom had been only uneasily subject to David and Solomon at the
best of times and had revolted from the Judean dynasty immediately
after Solomon's death, showing no signs, thereafter, of any longing to
return to its original allegiance. Would Hosea dream of the return of
David, or could the verse be the addition of a later Judean hand?
29. JOEL
JOEL * THE DAY OF THE LORD • THE VALLEY OF JEHOSHAPHAT
Joel
Joel ('Tahveh is God") is the first of the eleven minor prophets of
Judah. The collection of his utterances bears no dates but begins
merely:
Joel 1:1. The word of the Lord that came to Joel . . .
Since the book makes no mention of the Assyrian or Babylonian
menace, it would seem that Joel either spoke before those menaces had
made themselves plain or after they had passed. In other words, the
book must be dated either before 750 b.c. or after 500 b.c.
At the time the Jewish canon was being established, it was the first
alternative that seemed to attract the scribes, and for that reason Joel
was placed early in the group of minor prophets.
This, however, is extremely unlikely and modern commentators seem
certain that the book was written after the return from exile. There
are, after all, no references to kings, or to the idolatries that were so
prevalent during the kingdom. There is, on the other hand, mention of
the deportation of the Jews and the scattering that followed the
destruction of Jerusalem:
Joel 3:2. ... my people . . . whom they have scattered among the
nations.
There is even a reference to the Greeks, who did not come into the
Jewish ken until well along in the Persian period:
Joel 3:6. . . . the children of Jerusalem have ye [Tyre and Sidon]
sold unto the Grecians . . .
Judah at the Time of Joel
6j2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The reference here is undoubtedly to the lucrative slave trade car-
ried on by the Phoenicians in ancient times.
Consequently, the Book of Joel is usually dated about 400 B.C.
The Day of the Lord
Joel begins by describing a plague of locusts and then moves on
to consider this a disaster symbolizing a much more awful event that
will strike the world as the equivalent many times over of the locust
plague:
Joel 1:15. . . . for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruc-
tion from the Almighty shall it come.
The day of the Lord, to which Joel refers, is, of course, the apocalyp-
tic final accounting (see page 543) at which the tyrants who oppress
the Jews will be punished, while the Jews themselves will be compen-
sated with an ideal state and eternal security.
Because the day of the Lord is viewed as a day on which the nations
are judged, it has come to be called "Judgment Day."
The Valley of Jehoshaphat
God is quoted as describing the events of Judgment Day:
Joel 3:2. 1 will also gather all nations, and will bring them down
into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for
my people . . . whom they have scattered among the nations . . .
Cod is not pictured as pleading like a suppliant but rather like a
prosecuting attorney and judge. The Revised Standard Version makes
this clearer by translating this portion of the verse "I will enter into
judgement with them there, on account of my people."
No one has succeeded in definitely identifying the valley of Jehosha-
phat and it is probably not a real place. The word Jehoshaphat means
'Tahveh has judged" and perhaps the verse does not refer to king
Jehoshaphat of Judah but should be translated "and will bring them
down into the valley of the judgment of the Lord."
JOEL 633
Joel pictures the judgment as involving nations as a whole and the
punishment as being made to fit the crime:
Joel 3:4. . . . what have ye to do with me, O Tyre and Zidon . . .
Joel 3:6. The children ... 0/ Jerusalem have ye sold unto the
Grecians . . .
Joel 3:7. Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye
have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own
head:
Joel 3:8. And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand
of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them . . . to a people
far off.
Gradually, this notion of judgment by nations was still further
etherealized to the point where judgment became individual and per-
sonal. This is expressed, for instance, in the final verse of Ecclesiastes,
a late addition to a book that is itself post-Exilic:
Ecclesiastes 12:14. ^ 7 ° r ^od s ' uz ^ bring every work into judgment,
with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
The notion of individual judgment is also implied in the late-written
Book of Daniel:
Daniel 12:2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever-
lasting contempt.
30. AMOS
AMOS • CHIUN • AMAZIAH
Amos
The third of the twelve minor prophets is Amos and he seems to
be, in actual fact, the oldest (chronologically) of the group. Indeed,
he was the first example of a new phenomenon in the history of
Judaism: the inspired visionary whose words were preserved in writing.
Amos and those who followed are generally called prophets, but
there are many differences between the new breed and the old bands of
prophets led by men such as Samuel and Elisha. The latter were
ecstatics who in their fits were thought to be mystically close to God.
Amos, on the other hand, was a lone wolf, who needed no fits or
seizures but spoke in plain language on what he considered the im-
portant problems of the day. Indeed, on being questioned, he denies
that he is a prophet (in the old sense):
Amos 7:14. Then answered Amos and said ... I was no prophet,
neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman . . .
The Book of Amos is dated in the first verse:
Amos 1:1. The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of
Tekoa ... in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days
of Jeroboam . . . king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.
When the earthquake referred to might be is unknown. There is no
mention of an earthquake in the reign of Uzziah or of Jeroboam in
the Books of Kings or Chronicles. Rabbinic tradition states that it took
place when Uzziah was stricken with leprosy for attempting to officiate
Israel and Judah
6 3 6
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
at the Temple rites. This is merely legend, of course, but even if it
were true, the exact year in which Uzziah was stricken is unknown.
Some scholars find reason to believe that the leprosy struck eight
years before Uzziah's death; that is, in 748 b.c. If that was the year
of the earthquake, then Amos prophesied in 750 b.c. and, actually, that
is the usual estimate of the date of Amos's discourses.
One of Amos's apocalyptic visions states:
Amos 8:9. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord
God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken
the earth in the clear day.
This seems to be a reference to a solar eclipse and such an eclipse
was visible in Israel and Judah in 763 b.c. If Amos indeed prophesied
in 750 b.c. then it is quite reasonable to expect he had witnessed the
eclipse thirteen years earlier and that his impression of it colored this
verse.
If this is so, Amos is a contemporary of Hosea and Isaiah, perhaps a
little older than either.
Chiun
Amos was a Judean, a native of Tekoa, which was a village some ten
miles south of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, although the book records brief
warnings of destruction against the nations surrounding Judah, and
even against Judah itself, Amos's chief target was Israel:
Amos 7:15. . . . the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the
Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.
It was to Bethel he traveled: the southern outpost of Israel, twenty
miles north of Tekoa. There he preached against the Israelite custom
of worshiping at the shrines of Bethel and Dan (see page 339) and
against the idolatrous manner of the worship there. For instance, he
refers (rather obscurely) to some form of star-worship:
Amos 5:26. . . .ye have home the tabernacle of your Moloch and
Chiun your images, the star of your god.
The Revised Standard Version clarifies this somewhat by leaving
"tabernacle" untranslated and translating Moloch instead. The verse
AMOS 637
becomes: "You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your
star-god, your images." Apparently, then, Amos is referring to two
idols, Sakkuth and Kaiwan (Chiun); or perhaps they are alternate
names of the same deity, expressed in poetic parallelism. Neither is
mentioned anywhere else in the Bible but Kaiwan may be a form of
the Babylonian Kaiman, a deity representing the planet Saturn. If so,
this is one of the only two references to the planets in the Bible; the
other involves Lucifer, that is, Venus, in the Book of Isaiah (see page
538).
Amaziah
Amos also inveighed against the injustices in Israel, against the
luxury of the few and the poverty of the many, against the harshness
of the rich toward the poor. Like the later prophets Isaiah and Jere-
miah he denounced mere ritual and demanded ethical behavior. He
quotes God:
Amos 5:21. I hate, I despise your feast days . . .
Amos 5:22. Though ye offer me burnt offerings ... I will not ac-
cept them . . .
Amos 5:23. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs . . .
Amos 5:24. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteous-
ness as a mighty stream.
With this view it is reasonable to suppose that Amos did not believe
that the day of the Lord ("Judgment Day") could possibly be a day
of great joy for all Jews alike; since he could not believe that all Jews
alike would be saved by the mere existence of the Temple ritual.
Righteousness was required and for those in whom it was absent all
the ritual in the world would not help. Therefore he warned:
Amos 5:18. Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what
end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness and not light.
This seems to foreshadow the notion of individual judgment and
salvation, rather than national judgment.
For the nation's failure to bring about a thoroughgoing moral reform,
Amos quotes God as predicting certain disaster:
6 3 8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Amos 7:9. . . . I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the
sword.
Here, apparently, Amos went too far. He might denounce idolatry
and demand justice all he wished and he could be dismissed as a mere
dreamer and ranter. When he spoke of rising against the king, however,
he was encouraging rebellion and was speaking treason. Amaziah, the
Israelite priest officiating at Bethel, had no choice but to consider it
that:
Amos 7:10. Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam
king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee . . .
• • • *
Amos 7:12. AZso Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee
thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy
there:
Amos 7:13. But prophesy not again any more at Bethel . . .
Amos returned a spirited answer and predicted an evil end for
Amaziah (whether such an end came to pass the Bible does not say).
However, Amos presumably returned to Judah, for had he stayed in
Israel he would very likely have been convicted of treason and executed
and there is no tradition concerning his martyrdom.
31. OBADIAH
OBADIAH • SEPHARAD
Obadiah
The Book of Obadiah is the shortest book in the Old Testament, con-
sisting as it does of a single chapter made up of twenty-one verses.
Nothing about its author is known for the book starts off with nothing
more than the author's name:
Obadiah 1:1. The vision of Obadiah . . .
There are a dozen Obadiahs mentioned in the Bible outside this
book, the most notable of whom appears in the First Book of Kings.
This Obadiah was an important official in the palace of Ahab of Israel:
1 Kings 18:3. And Ahab called Obadiah which was the governor
of his house. (Now Obadiah feared the Lord greatly:
1 Kings 18:4. For . . . when Jezebel cut off the prophets . . .
Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave
and fed them . . .
Obadiah, for performing such a dangerous feat, in the very midst
of a notoriously idolatrous court, was looked up to by later Jews, and
the first-century Jewish historian Josephus maintained it was this Oba-
diah who was the prophet and who wrote the short book that goes by
that name.
This, however, would date the book about 860 b.c, which seems to
be impossible. In this book, Edom is anthematized for its crime in
joining the invaders who destroyed Jerusalem:
Judah
OBADIAH 64I
Obadiah 1:11. . . . thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that
the strangers carried away captive his [Judah's] forces, and foreigners
entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast
as one of them.
This, it is generally agreed, is a reference to the destruction of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c, so that it would seem that
the book cannot be earlier than that.
It cannot be too late, either. In the final verses, Obadiah seems to
expect a restoration of Israel as well as Judah:
Obadiah 1:20. . . . the captivity . . . of the children of Israel
shall possess . . . [the land] of the Canaanites . . . and the captivity
of Jerusalem . . . shall possess the cities of the south.
Since the Israelites never returned and did not participate in the
reoccupation of the land, it may well be that the Book of Obadiah was
written before the Return, or at least so early after the Return that the
non-return of Israel had not yet been accepted. At a guess, the book
may be dated 500 b.c.
Sepharad
The final verses also place the exiled Jews in a spot otherwise un-
mentioned in the Bible:
Obadiah 1:20. . . . and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in
Sepharad . . .
No one knows the locality which is here identified as Sepharad. It
does not seem to fit the name of any place in Babylonia, where the
Jews were in exile, and the word may be a corruption of an original
which is now impossible to recover.
One speculation has been that the word refers to Sardis, the capital
of Lydia, in western Asia Minor. There is, however, no reason to think
that there was any notable Jewish colony in that city in Exilic times.
During the Middle Ages, Jews flourished in Moslem Spain and the
rabbis of the day decided, quite without justification, that Sepharad
was a reference to Spain. As a result the Jews of Spain and Portugal,
together with their descendants down to the present day, are referred
642
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to as Sephardim, as opposed to the Ashkcnazim (see page 47), which
include the Jews from northern and eastern Europe.
These two groups remained distinct in certain aspects of ritual as
well as in ancestry. The Sephardim inherited details of their ritual from
the Babylonian school since Moslem rule extended over both Spain and
Babylonia (or Iraq, as we now call it) and communications across the
width of their empire remained possible and easy for many centuries.
The Ashkenazim, however, were descendants of those Jews who, both
before and after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, had maintained
themselves in Europe and, eventually, came under Christian rule. They
had no contact with Babylonia and inherited the ritual of Judea.
The Sephardic Jews were evicted from Spain in 1492 and were scat-
tered over North Africa and the Middle East. An important community
of Sephardim remained in Salonika, Greece, and was not finally de-
stroyed until 1941, when the Nazis occupied the land.
Some of the Sephardim found their way to Holland, England, and,
eventually, the United States. The early Jewish migrants to the United
States were Sephardim. Benjamin Disraeli, a Prime Minister of England
in the 1870's, and Benjamin Cardozo, an American Supreme Court
Justice of the 1930's, were of Sephardic origin.
The common language of the Sephardim is Ladino, a mixture of
Hebrew and Spanish, whereas that of the Ashkenazim is Yiddish,
closely related to medieval German. Each has its own rules for pro-
nouncing Hebrew and the modern nation of Israel has adopted the
Sephardic pronunciation, although the Sephardim make up only a small
percentage (perhaps one sixth) of the total Jewish population of the
world.
32. JONAH
JONAH * NINEVEH • THE GREAT FISH • THE COORD
Jonah
The Book of Jonah is unlike any of the other prophetic books in that
it is not primarily a record of the utterances of the prophet. Rather
it is a short story, clearly fictional. The hallmarks of fiction rest in its
anachronisms and its elements of fantasy.
It is included in the books of the prophets because its protagonist,
Jonah, would seem to be a man who lived in the time of the kingdoms
and who is mentioned in the reliable historical section of the Bible:
2 Kings 14:2;. He [Jeroboam II] restored the coast of Israel . . .
according to the word of the Lord . . . which he spake by the hand
of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai ... of Gath-hepher.
Gath-hepher is a town in Israel, in the section which, by Roman
times, had come to be called Galilee. Indeed, it is only about three
miles northeast of Nazareth, and the traditional tomb of Jonah is still
to be found there. The real Jonah might, therefore, like Hosea, be
viewed as an Israelite rather than a man of Judah.
Jonah (the real man) flourished in the early part of the reign of
Jeroboam II, for the verse records that he predicted the successful out-
come of the king's plans for territorial expansion. That would make
the prophet active about 780 b.c. Scholars agree that the book cannot
be that early, so that it was not written by Jonah himself or even by
one of his immediate disciples. The book makes use of the phrase-
ology of some of the later psalms; its language shows similarities to that
used in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; and its teachings have particu-
lar meaning for the time of the return from exile.
JONAH 645
A reasonable guess is that the book was written about 300 B.C. by
some anonymous Judean. The book, although dealing with an Israelite
prophet, is not an Israelite production in the sense that the Book of
Hosea is.
Nineveh
The Book of Jonah begins with God's instructions to Jonah:
Jonah 1:1. Now the word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of
Amittai, saying,
Jonah 1:2. Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against
it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
Here is an anachronism. Nineveh is treated as "that great city," the
capital of the Assyrian Empire; and, of course, so it was during the time
when Judah, under Manasseh, was an Assyrian tributary. Then it was
indeed "that great city," the most powerful and dreaded military center
in the world.
However, the real Jonah was active about 780 B.C. and at that time
Assyria was in a period of decay and was no threat to anyone. (How
else could Jeroboam II have created his short-lived empire?) Moreover,
Nineveh was then only a small provincial town. The capital of Assyria
in Jonah's day was Calah, as it had been for five centuries, from the
reign of Shalmaneser I in 1270 b.c.
It was Sennacherib who established the royal residence at Nineveh
nearly a century after the time of the real Jonah, and Nineveh remained
a world-conquering city for only about three quarters of a century. Its
fame far outshadows that of Calah, partly because it was when Nineveh
was capital that the Assyrian Empire reached its maximum extent; and
partly because it was when Nineveh was capital that the Assyrian
Empire was mistress over Judea, so that the city was rewarded by ample
mention in the Bible.
Later in the book, the writer refers to Nineveh in the past tense:
Jonah 3:3. . . . Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city . . .
The use of the past tense is an indication that the book had been
written (or at least reached its final form) not only after 612 b.c,
when Nineveh was destroyed, but long after, so that even its memory
had grown faint and could stand refreshing.
646
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Great Fish
Jonah was not willing to preach in Nineveh and perhaps we can sym-
pathize with him in this. A Jew asked to preach repentance to the city
of Berlin in the time of Hitler's ascendancy might have suffered similar
pangs of reluctance.
Jonah therefore took passage in a ship to Tarshish at the western
edge of the Mediterranean (see page 332). There is here a bit of
henotheism on the part of Jonah, for his action can only be under-
stood if he felt that God was not powerful outside Israel and that the
greater the distance from Israel, the weaker the hand of God.
The writer himself is not, however, a henotheist, and he makes it
plain that God cannot be escaped by mere physical distance. The ship
is struck by a storm and the mariners attempt to save themselves by
lightening the ship and throwing unnecessary cargo overboard. They
also cast lots to find out who among them had angered the gods, and
the lot fell upon Jonah, who was promptly thrown overboard. (Ever
since, a person or object that is believed to cause bad luck to those
about him has been called a "jonah." The slang equivalent, "jinx," is
not derived from Jonah despite the common possession of "j" and
"n.")
Once in the water, Jonah underwent a most unusual experience:
Jonah 1:17. Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow
up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three
nights.
Since the book is fiction, it would be best to consider the "great
fish" an element of fantasy, a mythological monster, and let it go at
that. Nevertheless, the popularity of the tale and the long centuries
during which it was considered to describe actual history have led to
endless discussions of the creature.
Popularly, Jonah's fish is considered to have been a whale. Nor can
one counter this by saying that the whale is not a fish, for this is the
case only according to the classification schemes of modern biologists,
who recognize the whale to be a mammal with warm blood and lungs,
rather than a true fish with cold blood and gills. Before the rise of
modern biology, however, fish (or the equivalent word in other
JONAH 647
languages) would be applied to any sea creature. We recognize this in
such common words as "shellfish," "jellyfish," and "starfish," none
of which represent what the modem biologist would consider a fish. In
Biblical times, therefore, a great fish could very easily signify a whale.
The suggestion that the fish is a whale is strengthened in the minds
of Christians by the fact that Jesus is quoted as referring to it as
such:
Matthew 12:40. ... Jonas [Jonah] was three days and three
nights in the whale's belly . . .
If it was a whale that swallowed Jonah, then we are left with the
fact that the only type of whale with a throat large enough to swallow
a man intact is the sperm whale— the largest of the toothed whales.
(There are larger whales which have whalebone strands or "baleen" in
their mouths. These strands serve to strain out the tiny creatures on
which the huge whales feed. Such baleen whales have throats suited to
the size of the creatures they eat and could not swallow a man's hand,
let alone a man.)
Sperm whales are not found in the Mediterranean and, in the course
of nature, it is completely unlikely that a man should be swallowed by
one there, or, still further, survive three days and nights of such incar-
ceration. All difficulties disappear, however, if it is remembered that the
Book of Jonah is a fantasy.
The Gourd
Jonah repented and was cast out upon dry land by the fish. The
order to go to Nineveh was now repeated and this time Jonah obeyed.
Through the city he went, proclaiming that Nineveh would be de-
stroyed in forty days.
Whereupon, to Jonah's surprise, apparently, all of Nineveh repented,
from the king on downward. All sat in sackcloth and fasted. This, in
itself, is as great a miracle as the three-day stay in the fish and, of
course, there is no record of such a remarkable occurrence anywhere in
secular history. Indeed, what is even more significant, there is no men-
tion of such an unusual Yahvistic victory in the historical books of the
Bible itself. Clearly this is another element of fantasy.
But to continue. As a result of Nineveh's mass repentance, God de-
cided not to destroy Nineveh after all. The city was spared.
6 4 8
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
At this unexpected turn, Jonah was furious. He had not wanted to
undertake the perilous mission but had tried to escape and been swal-
lowed by a fish for his pains. Now, after all he had gone through, all
had come to nothing. (One must assume he did not consider repent-
ance an achievement, but only the city's destruction.) Presumably,
though, he harbored hopes that God might destroy the city after all:
Jonah 4:5. So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side
. . . till he might see what would become of the city.
Jonah 4:6. And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to
come up over ]onah, that it might be a shadow over his head . . .
"Gourd" is the translation of the Hebrew word kikayon and is, it
would seem, a poor translation. The Revised Standard Version satisfies
itself with the more general "And the Lord God appointed a plant."
The best guess is that by the kikayon is meant the castor-oil plant which
is common in tropical countries and which can grow to tree size.
God, however, causes the gourd to die the next day, and Jonah,
finding a sudden absence of shade, is furious once more. Then comes
the climax and the moral of the tale:
Jonah 4:10. Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd,
for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow . . .
Jonah 4:11. And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city,
wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern
between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle.
Jonah is thus taught a lesson in mercy and pity and the writer em-
phasizes the care of God for all His creatures and rebukes the narrow
views of the nationalists. Even if the men of Nineveh are sinners, they
have repented; and aside from that, there are children in Nineveh who
are too young yet even to have learned to tell their right hand from
their left and surely they cannot be considered sinners worthy of death.
And in a final phrase Jonah is reminded of the innocent animals in
the city— virtually the only place in the Bible where a love of animals
is clearly displayed.
(This is the very reverse of the primitive conception of God as evi-
denced by Samuel's insistence on the complete extermination of the
Amalekites down to their cattle and his denunciation of Saul for at-
tempting to set limits to the destruction— see page 283.)
Clearly, the Book of Jonah, like that of Ruth, is the product of
JONAH 649
that school of Jewish thought which was universalist and which op-
posed the nationalist views of Ezra and his followers (see page 451).
It ' is the universality of God and the attribute of divine mercy that
are the lessons of Jonah. Those who think of the book as nothing more
than the story of a man and a whale iniss the whole point.
33. MICAH
MICAH • BETHLEHEM EPHRATAH • ISAIAH
Micah
The name Micah is a shortened foim of Micaiah ("who is like
Yahveh?"). The most important Micaiah in the Bible is a prophet of
Ahab's time. Before the battle of Ramoth-gilead (see page 351) Ahab
arranged to have his court prophets predict victory. His ally, Jehoshaphat
of Judah, requested that a prophet of Yahveh also be consulted:
1 Kings 22:8. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat,
There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may
inquire of the Lord: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good
concerning me, but evil . . .
Micaiah is called but he prophesies defeat and disaster. He is
mocked by the other prophets and is ordered off into imprisonment.
There is no chance at all, of course, that this Micaiah is the author
of the Book of Micah. Micaiah is an Israelite and the time of the
battle of Ramoth-gilead is 854 b.c. As the first verse of the Book of
Micah proclaims, the author is a Judean who preached over a century
after the time of Ahab's death:
Micah 1:1. The word of the Lord that came to Micah the
Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah . . .
Micah was thus the fourth of the great prophets of the eighth cen-
tury b.c, a contemporary of Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos. Whereas Hosea
was a northerner, and Isaiah an aristocrat of Jerusalem, Micah, like
Amos, was a Judean provincial. His description as a Morasthite in-
ASSYRIAN EMPIRE /
And
(7HE
Great SeA
(MMittrrtmm Sat)
(tjksh
KINGDOM Gf / S
l 'f w** V lOJHTWOtLED BY ISMgfl
iHrar! *0
Asihbl,
PHIUSTIA
UfiSir political or (awmiic
CmM ofjCHOBOAM II
Mto
MO
Israel and Judah
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
dicates him to be a native of Moresheth-gath, a town about twenty-five
miles southwest of Jerusalem, near the borders of Philistine territory.
The fact that Micah begins with a warning of the destruction of
Samaria would indicate that the early passages of the book antedate
the destruction of that city by Sargon in 722 b.c. Later, he denounces
the corruption of the priesthood of Judah and quotes God as saying:
Micah 3:12. Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a
field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps . . .
This verse was quoted, a century later, in the Book of Jeremiah, at
the time when that prophet was in danger of being lynched for his
Temple Sermon. Those who defended him pointed out that Micah,
like Jeremiah, had predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and had not
been executed.
Jeremiah 26:19. Did Hezekiah . . .put him [Micah] ... to death?
did he [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord . . .
Micah's prophecy, thus specified as having been in the time of
Hezekiah, was probably uttered with reference to the forthcoming siege
of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. If so, it was not entirely fulfilled, for
Jerusalem was not destroyed. It may be that the use of the quotation
at the time of Jeremiah's Temple Sermon also served the purpose of
soothing the indignant people by reminding them that prophecies of
doom need not be regarded too seriously.
Bethlehem Ephratah
After the visions of destruction, Micah passes on, as is customary
for the prophets, to picture the ideal state of the future and to predict
the coming of the Messiah. There are some suggestions that the Mes-
sianic chapters of Micah are later additions to the utterances of the
prophet of the time of Hezekiah; and that the additions date from the
time of the Exile a century and a half later. It was during the Exile,
after all, that Messianic hope and longings grew intense.
One piece of evidence in favor of this is a mention of Babylon as a
place of exile for "the daughter of Zion":
Micah 4:10. . . . thou shalt go even to Babylon . . . there the
Lord shall redeem thee . . .
MICAH 653
In Micah's time, it was Nineveh, not Babylon, that was the enemy.
If this reference is not accepted as a divinely inspired prophetic vision
of the future, then it must be taken to indicate, for that verse at least,
a later origin than the time of Micah.
Micah refers to the Messiah in a verse that became famous in later
centuries:
Micah 5:2. But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth
unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been
from of old, from everlasting.
If this verse is of Exilic origin then it may well be that Bethlehem
Ephratah is deliberately used as a symbolic way of referring to the
house of David by way of its ancestral town of origin. Any direct
mention of the coming of a new king of the Davidic line might have
brought down Babylonian suspicion of attempted treason. If so, this
prediction would be one of an ideal king arising from the Davidic
line, which had now, through dethronement and imprisonment, be-
come "little among the thousands of Judah." (The Revised Standard
Version has it read "little . . . among the clans of Judah.")
The "goings forth" which "have been from of old, from everlast-
ing" would refer to the fact that the line was an ancient one, stretching
back to the beginnings of the monarchy centuries earlier. The term
"everlasting" gives one the impression of eternal existence, and, there-
fore, of a Messiah who existed coevally with God. However, "ever-
lasting" seems to be a poor translation, and the Revised Standard
Version has the passage read "whose origin is from of old, from ancient
days" with no implication of a more-than-historic origin.
Despite the interpretation I suggest here, the fact is that Micah 5:2
came to be interpreted literally as describing the place where the Mes-
siah was to be bom. It came to be expected that the Messiah, like his
ancestor David, was to be bom in Bethlehem.
Isaiah
Micah, in his vision of the Messianic future, is quoted as predicting
a time when swords would be beaten into plowshares and war
would cease in almost the precise words Isaiah used (see page 535 ) .
654 ASIMOv'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Since the two prophets are contemporaries, it is difficult to argue that
Isaiah was quoting Micah or that Micah was quoting Isaiah. Perhaps
the passage is the Exilic utterance of some anonymous person which
later editors placed in the Bible in different manners; one attributing
it to Isaiah and one to Micah, with the resulting discrepancy never
having been smoothed out.
The Book of Micah, like that of Isaiah, denounced the injustices
practiced by the rich upon the poor and upheld the view that religion
is not essentially ritual. In a very famous passage, the Book of Micah
defines what it considers to be the essence of true religion:
Micah 6:7. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or
with ten thousands of rivers of oil? . . .
Micah 6:8. He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what
doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and
to walk humbly with thy God?
34. NAHUM
Nahum
This book of three chapters is devoted to a paean of joy over the
forthcoming destruction of Nineveh:
Nahum i:i. The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of
Nahum the Elkoshite.
(or, as the Revised Standard Version has it: "An oracle concerning
Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum of Elkosh.")
The location of the town of Elkosh is unknown, though some have
suggested it to be southwest of Jerusalem in the neighborhood of
Moresheth-gath, the home town of Micah (see page 652).
The book, which treats Nineveh's fall as a matter of inevitability,
was probably written not long before 612 B.C., when the city was taken
by the allied forces of Chaldea and Media.
Nahum 2:4. The chariots shall rage in the streets [of Nineveh] . . .
Nahum 2:6. The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace
shall be dissolved.
Nahum 2:7. And Huzzab shall be led away captive . . .
The meaning of Huzzab is uncertain. If it is not some sort of
copyist's error, then it may be a symbolic name for Nineveh; or it may
refer to some Assyrian goddess and idol; or even to the Ninevite queen.
The Revised Standard Version has the passage read, ". • . the palace is
in dismay; its mistress is stripped . • ."
35. HABAKKUK
Habakkuk
Nothing is known of the prophet, for the first verse of this book
simply says:
Habakkuk 1:1. The burden which Habakkuk the prophet did
see.
The reference to Habakkuk in Bel and the Dragon (see page 622)
can be completely discounted, of course.
This brief book must, apparently, be dated shortly after that of
Nahum, perhaps about 60; b.c. Nineveh has fallen for now it is the
Chaldeans who represent the great danger and against whom the wrath
of God is promised. This view rests, actually, upon a single verse. When
Habakkuk complains to Cod about the evils being practiced in Judah,
he is assured that there will be a punishment:
Habakkuk 1:6. For lo, I raise up the Chaldeans . . .
36. ZEPHANIAH
Zephaniah
Zephaniah is given the longest genealogy of any of the prophets:
Zephaniah 1:1. The word of the Lord which came unto Zephaniah,
the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of
Hizkiah . . .
Hizkiah is a form of Hezekiah, and the name is given as Hezekiah in
the Revised Standard Version. It is very tempting to suppose that the
genealogy is stretched through four generations in order that it be
made to reach a particularly important person. If so, it could be that
by Hezekiah is meant the king of Judah, and that Zephaniah is there-
fore the great-grandson of that king.
This would fit, without distortion, the dating of the book, which is
given as:
Zephaniah 1:1. . . . in the days of Josiah . . . king of Judah.
Josiah is also the great-grandson of Hezekiah and it might be, then,
that Zephaniah (like Isaiah; see page 527) is a member of the royal
family and is, indeed, second cousin of the reigning king.
Zephaniah denounces idolatry and quotes God as saying:
Zephaniah 1:4. ... I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this
place . . .
This passage, at least, would seem to be dated earlier than Josiah's
reformation of 621 b.c. The utterances of Zephaniah must be viewed
against the background of the beginning of Assyria's rapid fall and the
quickly gathering anarchy that sweeps over western Asia, compounded,
perhaps, by the final raids of the nomadic Cimmerians (see page 558).
Judah
66o
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The prophet sees in all this a foretaste of the coming day of the
Lord and a sample of its nature:
Zephaniah 1:14. The great day of the Lord is near . . .
Zephaniah 1:15. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and
distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and
gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness.
37. HAGGAI
HAGCAI ' ZERUBBABEL
Haggai
The Book of Haggai is dated quite specifically:
Haggai 1:1. In the second year of Darius . . . came the word
of the Lord by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel . . . governor
of Judah, and to Joshua . . . the high priest . . .
Darius ascended the throne of Persia in 521 b.c. and Haggai's
message was therefore advanced in 520 b.c.
The Jewish exiles had returned to Jerusalem seventeen years earlier
and yet the Temple had not been rebuilt (owing largely to the hostility
of the people of the land; see page 441 ) . It was Haggai's task, there-
fore, to spur on Zerubbabel and Joshua, the political and religious
leaders of the returnees, to complete the task. With renewed vigor (and
with the patronage of Darius; see page 448), the Jews bent to the task
and the Temple was rebuilt.
Zerubbabel
The final short speech attributed to Haggai is Messianic in character.
What's more, the Messiah is named, for Haggai quotes God as saying:
Haggai 2:22. ... I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms . . .
Haggai 2:23. In that day . . . will I take thee, O Zerubbabel,
my servant . . . and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen
thee . . .
Judah
HAGGAI
Since Zerubbabel was of Davidic descent (see page 405) and since
he was in charge of the Jewish community at the time of the restoration
of the Temple, it would seem natural to consider him as a possible
Messiah, but the hope came to nothing.
Haggai is not heard of after 520 b.c. and may well have died a
natural death shortly after his emergence on the stage of Jewish history.
There is, after all, some reason to consider him an old man for at one
point he asks, with reference to the second Temple as it is under
construction:
Haggai 2:3. Who is left among you that saw this house in her
first glory: and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in
comparison of it as nothing?
If one accepts the implication that Haggai did see the first Temple
and could make the comparison (and was challenging other ancients
to do the same), then he was of advanced age. Even if he were only
fourteen at the time of the destruction of the Temple in 586 b.c, he
would be eighty in 520 b.c. A natural death at that age would not be
surprising.
Zerubbabel also disappears from history. It is reasonable to suppose
that being made the object of Messianic prophecies was fatal to his
usefulness as a Judean governor, at least as far as the Persians were
concerned. After this time, in fact, the leader of the Jewish community
was the High Priest alone. It was as though the Persians had decided it
would be too dangerous to allow the Jews a secular ruler as well.
The Jews were to continue to remain without a secular ruler for four
centuries thereafter, until the time of the Maccabees.
38. ZECHARIAH
ZECHARIAH • SATAN • THE BRANCH • HADRACH • THE SHEPHERDS
Zechariah
Zechariah is a contemporary of Haggai and the prophetic activity of
the two began in the same year, 520 B.C.
Zechariah 1:1. In the . . . second year of Darius, came the word
of the Lord unto Zechariah . . .
The two prophets are even mentioned together in the Book of Ezra:
Ezra 5:2. Then the prophets, Haggai . . . and Zechariah . . .
prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah . . .
However, whereas Haggai's work ended the year it began, Zechariah
continued to prophesy at least as late as 518 B.C.:
Zechariah 7:1. And it came to pass in the fourth year of king
Darius, that the word of the Lord came unto Zechariah . . .
It was Zechariah, therefore, who (as possibly much the younger man
of the two) continued the task of encouraging the rebuilding of the
Temple after Haggai's voice had fallen mute.
Satan
Zechariah speaks of the sufferings and defeats of Judah and of the
coming restoration of the kingdom in a series of visions granted him by
an angel (rather like those in the later Book of Daniel). At one point,
the change in Judah's fortunes is described as follows:
ZECHARIAH 66;
Zechariah 3:1. And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing
before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to
resist him.
Zechariah 3:2. And the Lord said unto Satan, the Lord rebuke
thee, O Satan . . .
Zechariah 3:3. Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments . . .
Zechariah 3:4. And he [the Lord] . . . spake . . . saying, Take
away the filthy garments. ... I will clothe thee with change of
raiment.
Joshua here represents, apparently, the Jewish nation, clothed in the
sins of its fathers, but now rescued and promoted into grace and virtue
(as symbolized by the new clothing).
The Jews of Babylonia had come under Persian influence only in
538 b.c. when Cyrus conquered Babylon, but already, less than twenty
years later, Persian dualism had affected Judaism to the point where
Satan began to play a part. Here Satan fulfills his early role (also shown
in the Book of Job, which was written perhaps a century after
Zechariah's time) as a kind of prosecuting attorney against mankind
and, particularly, against the Jewish people.
The Branch
To Zechariah, as to Haggai, the prospect of the completion of the
second Temple was a clear indication of the coming of the Messiah,
the predicted scion of the Davidic line, who would rule over an ideal
Jerusalem. Thus, after Joshua is attired in clean garments, he is told,
in Zechariah's vision:
Zechariah 3:8. Hear now, O Joshua . . . behold, I will bring
forth my servant the Branch.
Here, Isaiah's metaphor of the Messiah, as the fresh branch arising out
of the withered stock of the Davidic line, is used.
Nor does the Branch, in this case at least, refer merely to some
indefinite ideal king of the future. He is named:
Zechariah 6:9. And the word of the Lord came unto me saying,
666
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Zechariah 6:n. . . . take silver and gold, and make crowns, and
set them upon the head of Joshua . . . the high priest;
Zechariah 6:12. And speak unto him, saying . . . Behold the man
whose name is The Branch; and he shall . . . build the temple of the
Lord.
Originally, this passage seems to have referred to two men, for
Zechariah describes himself as being instructed to make "crowns" (in
the plural), which would mean two of them at least. Rather than
suppose that both were placed on Joshua's head, it would be more
reasonable to suppose that one was set on Joshua and the other on a
second person, and that this second person is introduced to Joshua as
"The Branch." The Branch is described as someone who will "build
the temple of the Lord" and this can only be Zerubbabcl. Zechariah
is thus, like Haggai, naming Zerubbabel as the Messiah.
He goes on:
Zechariah 6:13. Even he [The Branch, or Zerubbabel] shall build
the temple of the Lord and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and
rule upon the throne; and he [Joshua] shall be a priest upon his
throne; and the council of peace shall be between them both.
A later editor seems to have tampered with this passage by removing
actual reference to Zerubbabel, since this portion of the prophecy was
quickly shown to be untrue, and the secular rule vanished. On the other
hand, the High Priesthood continued unbroken throughout the succeed-
ing centuries, so that Joshua's name might be allowed to stay.
Hadrach
The last six chapters of this book do not appear to be from the
hand of the Zechariah who is the author of the first eight. The style of
the language alters; the background against which the language is
spoken seems to have changed radically; and there are references to
events that don't fit in with the time of the immediate return from
exile.
This later section of the book begins:
Zechariah 9:1. The burden of the word of the Lord in the land of
Hadrach, and Damascus . . .
ZECHARIAH
This section of the book is not carefully dated, as is the earlier
section (in two different places); nor is the prophet's name mentioned.
Hadrach, unmentioned elsewhere in the Bible, is apparently a town
in northern Syria and the first verses of the ninth chapter describe the
passage of a conquering army down the length of Syria and Philistia:
Zechariah 9:3. . . . Tyrus did build herself a strong hold . . .
Zechariah 9:4. Behold, the Lord will cast her out . . . and she
shall be devoured with fire.
Zechariah 9:5. . . . and the king shall perish from Gaza . . .
It is tempting to see in this passage a reference to the career of
Alexander the Great as he impinged upon that area of the world in-
habited by the Jews. In 333 b.c, Alexander defeated Darius III of
Persia at the battle of Issus at the northeastern comer of the Medi-
terranean Sea, some four hundred miles north of Jerusalem. He then
proceeded to march southward, taking all of Syria (Hadrach and
Damascus) without a fight. Phoenicia, all but Tyre, capitulated. Tyre,
undoubtedly remembering its heroic defense against Nebuchadnezzar
(see page 588) fortified itself and held out
Alexander the Great, however, was a far more deadly opponent than
Nebuchadnezzar. The siege lasted seven months of desperate attack
and defense and in the end Alexander won and Tyre was destroyed, in
332 b.c. Alexander also reduced Gaza after a stubborn siege, executing
its Persian governor.
Those astonishing victories over a Persian Empire which, for two
centuries, the Jews must have considered invincible could not help but
seem supernatural in character. Alexander must be a tool in the hand of
God, overturning the great kingdoms of the earth in order to prepare the
way for the coming of the Messianic kingdom. Certainly, the Jews did
not attempt to join in any resistance against Alexander and the armies
of that mighty conqueror moved harmlessly past them.
If it is indeed the career of Alexander the Great that inspires this
passage, the writer might have taken the view that the great military
power attributed to the Messiah by earlier prophets was fulfilled in the
form of a heathen king. The true Messiah might now appear in quite
other guise to bring about the state of ideal peace associated with him.
With military affairs taken care of, the non-military aspect, the humility,
the peaceful nature of the Messiah could be emphasized:
668
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Zechariah 9:9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Ziort; shout, O
daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is
just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a
colt the foal of an ass.
Zechariah 9:10. . . . and he shall speak peace unto the heathen:
and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river
even to the ends of the earth.
The Shepherds
If this peaceful picture arises in the immediate aftermath of
Alexander's victory, it is followed at once by a scries of strenuous and
obscure passages that seem to date later still, from the period of
Seleucid persecution, when the Jews rose in revolt against their Greek-
speaking masters. Thus, immediately after the picture of the humble
Messiah riding upon an ass, there is a picture of war:
Zechariah 9:13. .. . I have . . . raised up thy sons, O Zion,
against thy sons, O Greece . . .
Again, there is hostility toward other nations, rather than the notion
of a Messiah who "shall speak peace unto the heathen." Thus:
Zechariah 10:11. ... the pride of Assyria shall be brought down,
and the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away.
The reference here seems to be to the two portions of Alexander's
broken empire which were of particular interest to the Jews: Ptolemaic
Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom. The latter was commonly known as
Syria because its Syrian centers of power were nearest the Jews, and
this Syria is here converted, presumably by a copyist's error, to Assyria.
There follow passages concerning shepherds which defy intrepreta-
tion. The shepherds can well refer to the various High Priests of the
Temple during the period of the Seleucid persecution, and to the
struggle for power among them as some supported compromise with
Greek culture while others held out for firm adherence to the principles
of Judaism. The events of the time, known in full detail to the
original readers of the passage, are known only sketchily to us and this
leaves us confused. Thus:
Zechariah 11:8. Three shepherds also I cut off in one month . . .
ZECHARIAH
This may be a reference to three High Priests deposed in a short
space of time owing to the strife of contending factions, but the
details are unknown.
The writer seems to be speaking of himself as one of the shepherds:
Zechariah 11:4. Thus saith the Lord my God; Feed the flock . . .
• • * •
Zechariah 11:7. . . . and I fed the flock.
For some reason not made plain to us, but probably clear to the
original readers, the shepherd resigned from his position and asked for
his wages:
Zechariah 11:12. . . .So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of
silver.
Zechariah 11:13. • • • And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and
cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.
The shepherd considers this payment to be insultingly small and it
may even have been meant as a deliberate insult, since thirty pieces of
silver is set in the Mosaic law as the compensation for an injury to a
slave:
Exodus 22:32. If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant',
he [the owner of the ox] shall give unto their master thirty shekels of
silver . . .
The word "potter" seems to be a mistranslation of the Hebrew
word, which really means "treasury." The Revised Standard Version
has Zechariah 11:13 read "I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast
them into the treasury in the house of the Lord." It is as though,
disdaining to bother with so small a sum, the shepherd donated it to
the Temple.
The book ends with an apocalyptic picture of the final battle of the
heathen against Jerusalem, their defeat, and the establishment of the
ideal Messianic kingdom.
39. MALACHI
Malachi
The author's name is given in the first verse of the book:
Malachi 1:1. The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by
Malachi.
The name Malachi means "my messenger" and it is possible that it
does not represent the actual name of the author but arises out of a
misunderstanding on the part of a later editor.
Later in the book there occurs the verse:
Malachi 3:1. Behold I [God] will send my messenger, and he
shall prepare the way before me . . .
the messenger being one who prepares the world for the day of the
Lord.
If the editor assumed that the messenger had come and was the
author of the book, he would naturally place "my messenger" or,
in Hebrew, Malachi, in the superscription.
But if this is indeed the origin of the reputed name of the author
of the book, it would seem to be a mistake. Later in the book, there is
mention again of someone to be sent to prepare the way, and this time
the messenger is named:
Malachi 4:;. Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the
coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
It is difficult to tell when the book was written but the best estimate
seems to be about 460 b.c. At that time, the second Temple had
already been built but Jerusalem was still without walls and helpless,
and the people were despondent and apathetic.
It could already be seen that the prophecies of Haggi and Zecha-
MALACHI 671
riah, two generations earlier, had not come to pass, for Zerubbabel had
faded out in most un-Messiahlike fashion. What's more, the inspiring
presence of Nehemiah (see page 456) had not yet made itself felt. It
was Malachi's task, therefore, to assure the despondent Jews (and
threaten them, too) that the day of the Lord would nevertheless come
and that they had better be ready for that coming.
VOLUME TWO
THE NEW TESTAMENT
To
Lawrence P. Ashmead
who still has faith
1. TOBIT
TOBIT * RACES * ASMODEUS * RAPHAEL ' AZARIAS " TIGRIS RIVER " EDNA
Tobit
Following the Book of Nehemiah in the Roman Catholic version
of the Bible are two short historical books which are not found in
either the Jewish or the Protestant canon. They are therefore part of
the Apocrypha. First comes one that is set in the Assyrian period,
roughly 700 B.C.; then one with a very confused chronology that speaks
of Nebuchadnezzar, who was at the height of his power about 580 b.c.
These tales do not portray actual history, but seem to be what we
would call today "historical romances." Their fictional nature does
not prevent them from serving religious or ethical purposes, of course,
but since in this book I am primarily interested in the secular aspects
of the Bible, there will be a particular interest in trying to sort out the
chronology.
The first of these tales is the Book of Tobit, which begins at once
with the character for whom it is named:
Tobit 1:1. The book of the words of Tobit . . .
Tobit is a form of the Hebrew name Tobiah, which, in its Greek
form, is Tobias. In the Catholic version, the Book of Tobit is termed
the Book of Tobias.
The date at which the book was written is not known for certain,
but it may be about 200 b.c. It is possible that the author lived in
Alexandria, which at that time was the capital of Egypt. About 200 b.c,
Judea passed from the friendly hands of the Macedonian rulers of
Egypt (the Ptolemies) to the much harsher grip of the Macedonian
rulers of Syria (the Seleucids). A new period of persecution of the
678
ASIMOV S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
AsUod. /C O
r
4^ . C^T^^*".
*\>*\ :ff
^ ■ rrvnimi* i /
Jerusalem Restored
tobit 679
Jews began and the story of Tobit, dealing with the Assyrian persecu-
tion, five centuries before, reflects this.
The time in which the events described in Tobit are supposed to
have happened are given:
Tobit 1:2. . . . [Tobit] in the time of Enemessar [Shalmaneser]
king of the Assyrians was led captive . . .
This makes Tobit alive in 722 b.c. when the city of Samaria, having
been besieged by Shalmaneser of Assyria, was taken by Shalmaneser's
successor Sargon (see page I- 377).* Numbers of the Israelites were
taken off into exile and Tobit with them.
Tobit, speaking in the first person, describes himself as of the tribe
of Naphtali.
Tobit 1:4.... when I was . . . young, all the tribe of Nephthali
[Naphtali] . . . fell from the house of Jerusalem . . .
Apparently, Tobit is speaking here of the rebellion of Jeroboam
which succeeded in founding an independent Israel in 933 B.C. Clearly,
it is impossible for Tobit to have been alive both in the time of
Jeroboam and in the time of Shalmaneser. Nor does the author intend
to imply that Tobit was as long-lived as the antediluvian patriarchs,
for at the time of a central event later in the book, Tobit is described
as not too old a man.
Tobit 14:2. And he [Tobit] was eight and fifty years old . . .
Rather, it is merely the chronological confusion we would expect
of an author writing some five centuries after the events related; an
author who had only a hazy notion of the order of events and no
records to use as a reliable source. In short, it is what one would expect
if Tobit were originally written as a piece of edifying fiction, telling
what might have happened, rather than what did happen.
Rages
Tobit, however, remained faithful to Jerusalem, even when carried
off to exile in Nineveh. He managed to obtain a high position at the
• Where page references to Volume I are given they will be preceded by "I",
otherwise not. Thus "page 1-123" wi'l rerer t0 P 8 ^ 1*3 of Volume I while "page
673" will refer to Volume II .
(,^() ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Assyrian court, being placed in charge of the purchasing of provisions
with government money, and having freedom of movement about the
dominion.
Tobit 1:14. And I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael
. , . at Rages . . . ten talents of silver.
This again is anachronistic, for though parts of Media were under
the control of the Assyrian Empire, much of it (including the region
about Rages) was not. It is very unlikely that Tobit could travel
freely (as an official of the Assyrian court) outside the border, especially
if he were carrying large quantities of government money. Nor is ten
talents a mean sum of money. A talent would be equal to about $2000
in today's money.
In 200 B.C., however, the regions that had once been Assyria and
Media were both under the domination of the Seleucid kings and
formed part of a single realm. The writer of the Book of Tobit was
thus reflecting the geography of his own time rather than that of the
supposed time of the book.
Rages (also spelled Rhages) was an important city of Media, per-
haps second only to Ecbatana (see page I-448 ) . It was located about
150 miles northeast of Ecbatana, and its ruins are only five miles
south of Teheran, the capital of modern Iran.
Rages' period of greatest glory came later, however, well after Biblical
times. It was a capital of the Persian kingdoms that flourished in
Roman times and before the coming of the Mohammedans it was
the center of Zoroastrian religion. To the Persians, the city was known
as Rai.
In Mohammedan times, it was the birthplace of Harun-al-Rashid,
the Caliph of the Arabian Nights. It was also the birthplace of a great
medieval physician who was known as "al-Razi" to the Persians, from
his birthplace, and as Rhazes to Europeans.
Rages was devastated by the Mongol invaders in a.d. 1220 and never
recovered.
Asmodeus
But misfortunes crowded upon Tobit. Once the Assyrian conqueror
died, Sennacherib succeeded to the throne and he is pictured as a
TO B IT
681
violent anti-Semite who ordered the killing of Jews and forbade their
corpses to be buried.
It is considered a frightful thing in many cultures for a dead body
to be left undisposed of, to be left deprived of appropriate religious
rites. There are usually beliefs that the souls of such bodies must drift
about aimlessly through shadows and cannot find rest until the bodies
they once inhabited are appropriately cared for. The Greeks of
Homer's time believed this, and so did the Jews.
In threatening a people with punishment, for instance, not only
death is foretold but lack of burial. Thus, Jeremiah, quoting God's
warning to Judea in the last years of the kingdom, says:
Jeremiah 16:4. They shall die of ffievous deaths . . . neither
shall they be buried . . .
Sennacherib, then, is pictured as deliberately punishing Jews after
death, as well as in life. Tobit engages in an act of piety by burying
such bodies and gets into trouble with the authorities in consequence.
He is forced to leave the country, and his property is confiscated.
Esarhaddon succeeds to the throne and appoints a relative of Tobit
to high office. The relative intercedes for Tobit, who returns to Nine-
veh. But then, after once again burying a corpse, he is stricken with
cataracts of the eyes and goes blind. His faith remains strong and he
continues to praise God, but he longs for death.
Meanwhile, in Ecbatana, a girl named Sara, a niece of Tobit, is
also longing for death—
Tobit 3:8. Because that she had been married to seven husbands,
■whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed, before they had lain
with her . . .
With seven husbands dead, each on the wedding night, she was
being reproached as a husband-murderer.
Asmodeus, the real murderer, does not occur in any canonical book
of the Bible. His name is a corruption of that of a demon in Persian
mythology— "Aeshma deva," the demon Aeshma.
Partly because of this story in the Book of Tobit, Asmodeus was, in
later centuries, taken to be the demon in charge of marital unhappi-
ness. He played a role also in non-Biblical legends concerning Solomon
and was sometimes held to be identical with Satan himself.
6S2
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Raphael
But better days were coming for both Tobit and Sara, for their
devoutness and prayers had their effect. God heard them —
Tobit 3:17. And Raphael was sent to heal them both . . .
Under the influence of Persian religious thought (which postulated
vast armies of good and evil spirits), the Jews in the centuries after
the restoration had worked out an increasingly complex structure for
the celestial hierarchy. There were not merely angels, for instance, but
archangels ("chief angels") as well. Tradition eventually listed seven
such archangels, of whom only two, Gabriel and Michael, are to be
found anywhere in the books included in the King James Version.
In addition, Raphael is included here in the apocryphal Book of Tobit
and Uriel in the apocryphal 2 Esdras. Others are mentioned in non-
Biblical legends.
Mohammedan tradition lists four archangels. Mohammedans share
Gabriel and Michael with the Jews and Christians and add Azrael
and Israfel. Azrael is the angel of death, and Israfel sounds the trumpet
on the day of judgment and resurrection (the task which falls to
Gabriel in Christian tradition).
The choice of Raphael as the angel to heal Tobit and Sara is ap-
propriate since Raphael means "God heals."
Azarias
Suddenly Tobit remembers the ten talents he had left in Rages and
decides to send his son, Tobias, to Rages to collect it. To strengthen
the son on his dangerous journey through heathen lands he gives him
a code of behavior to follow (as, in Hamlet, Polonius lectures his son,
Laertes, before the latter's trip to Paris). One of the maxims is:
Tobit 4:15. Do that to no man which thou hatest . . .
This is translated in the Revised Standard Version as "And what
you hate, do not do to any one." This is the negative version of what
is commonly called the Golden Rule— that of guiding your actions
TOBIT
683
by empathy; that is, by putting yourself in the place of the other per-
son.
The Golden Rule is more familiar to us in its positive form; a form
which advises us not merely to refrain from doing what is hateful, but
to proceed to do what is desirable. The positive form is given in the
course of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 7:12. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them . . .
or, as expressed in Luke:
Luke 6:31. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye
also to them likewise.
One often hears the Golden Rule expressed as follows: "Do unto
others as you would have others do unto you." This is not the form,
however, in which the saying occurs in the Bible, either in the King
James Version or the Revised Standard Version.
Tobias, in preparing for the journey, comes across Raphael in
human guise, and Raphael offers to guide the young man to Rages.
Tobias' father, Tobit, inquires carefully as to the identity of the guide:
Tobit 5:12. Then he [Raphael] said, I am Azarias . . . and of
thy brethren.
Azarias is the Greek form of the Hebrew Azariah, or Ezra, and the
name is carefully chosen, for it means "Yahveh helps."
Tigris River
Tobias and the angel set out on their journey.
Tobit 6:1. . . . tliey came in the evening to the river Tigris, and
they lodged there.
Here one can see that the writer may well be an Alexandrian for he
shows himself deficient in knowledge of Asian geography. It would
seem he believes Nineveh to be a day's journey from the Tigris (re-
ferred to elsewhere in the Bible as Hiddekel, see page I-27), when
actually the Assyrian capital was situated right on that river.
What's more, Nineveh was on the eastern bank of the river and
684
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
since Rages was some five hundred miles east of Nineveh, one does
not have to reach or cross the Tigris at all in going from one city to
the other.
While washing in the river, Tobias catches a large fish and Raphael
instructs him to keep the heart, liver, and gall. The heart and liver, he
explains, can be used in combating demons, while the gall is a cure
for cataracts.
Edna
Eventually they reach Ecbatana, still 150 miles short of their goal.
There, Raphael proposes they stay with Raguel, the father of Sara,
and that a marriage be arranged between the two young people.
When they arrived at Raguel's house, the host noted the family
resemblance of Tobias at once:
Tobit 7:2. Then said Raguel to Edna his wife, How like is this
young man to Tobit my cousinl
It is a mark of the popularity of the books of the Apocrypha that so
many proper names in them have come into common use. Tobias is
itself an example, both in that form, and in its English abbreviation,
Toby.
Edna is another case, perhaps a surprising one. It does not sound
like a Biblical name and, in fact, it does not occur in the canonical
books. At first thought, one might guess that it is an Anglo-Saxon
name since the prefix "Ed-" (from "Aed-" meaning "property" and
hence a natural component of the names of propertied people) was
a common feature among the Anglo-Saxon gentry. Examples are Ed-
ward, Edwin, Edmund, Edgar among males and Edith and Edwina
among females.
Edna, however, is a Hebrew word, meaning "rejuvenation."
After this, all goes well. Tobias obtains leave to marry Sara, al-
though he is duly warned of the death of seven previous husbands.
Tobias, however, burns the fish's liver in the wedding chamber and the
charm drives Asmodeus away. The marriage is consummated happily
and there is a long wedding feast.
Raphael travels onward to Rages and collects the ten talents due
T O B I T 68 >
Tobit. All return home after this and there Tobias uses the fish's gall
to cure his father's cataracts.
Raphael then reveals himself and everything ends in total happiness.
The family enjoys wealth, long life, and many descendants. In a
veritable orgy of anachronisms and twisted chronologies, Tobit, on his
deathbed, advises Tobias to leave Nineveh, which is soon to fall.
Tobias retires to Ecbatana, his wife's city, and survives long enough
to see the destruction of Nineveh:
Tobit 14:15. . . . before he [Tobias] died he heard of the destruc-
tion of Nineve [Nineveh], which was taken by Nabuchodonosor
[Nebuchadnezzar] and Assuerus [Ahasuems] . . .
Actually, it was taken by Nabopolassar, the rather of Nebuchadnez-
zar, and by the Median king, Cyaxares. Ahasuems (that is, Xerxes)
did not reign until a century and a quarter after the fall of Nineveh.
However, it may have been the author's intention to use the de-
struction of Nineveh as an indication to his readers that the Seleucid
Empire would also be destroyed. If so, and if the book was indeed writ-
ten in 200 b.c, then the writer was a fairly good prophet. The Seleucid
Empire was not utterly destroyed, to be sure, but its power over Judea
was broken and the Jews entered a period of prideful independence once
more. And that time came but a generation after the Book of Tobit was
written (if we accept 200 b.c. as the date of writing), so that its first
readers may have lived to see the breaking of the Seleucid grip, as
Tobias lived to see Nineveh fall.
2. JUDITH
NABUCHODONOSOR • ARPHAXAD ' RAGAU ' HYDASPES ' HOLOFERNES • JOACIM ■
BETHUHA • JUDITH • BAGOAS
Nabuchodonosor
The historical romance following the Book of Tobit is the Book
of Judith, named after the heroine of the tale. The best guess as to its
date of authorship is somewhere about 150 B.C., shortly after the tyranny
of the Seleucids had been overcome. It was a period of great na-
tionalistic fervor and tales telling of great deeds against impossible
odds must have been much in favor. Judith is an example.
Despite the fact that the Book of Judith lacks the supernatural
elements found in Tobit, Judith is even more clearly fictional. It deals
with a victory that is mentioned nowhere outside this book, with places
and people not to be found elsewhere, and its chronology is hopelessly
twisted. It is not included in the Jewish canon or in the King James
Version. Nevertheless it has been immensely popular for the sake of
the story it told.
It begins by dating itself:
Judith 1:1. In the twelfth year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor
[Nebuchadnezzar], who reigned in Nineve [Nineveh] . . .
If this date is to be taken soberly, then the Book of Judith begins
in 594 b.c. when Zedekiah is on the throne in Jerusalem and the
kingdom of Judah is tottering toward its fall.
However, the confusion has already started, for Nebuchadnezzar
reigned in Babylon over a Chaldean Empire and not in Nineveh over
an Assyrian one. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne only
after Nineveh had completely been destroyed.
JUDITH
687
Jerusalem Restored
688
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Arphaxad
But the tale does not begin with Nebuchadnezzar only; it switches
to another monarch at once:
Judith 1:1. .. . in the days of Arphaxad, which reigned over
the Medes in Ecbatane,
Judith 1:2. And built in Ecbatane walls round about . . .
There is no record of anyone named Arphaxad, or anything like it,
among the kings of the Medes.
According to Herodotus, the first important king of the Medes was
Deioces, who came to the throne about 700 b.c. and reigned till 647 B.C.
Southern sections of Media were then under intermittent Assyrian
control after Sargon's conquering armies had invaded it in 710 b.c.
Under Deioces, however, Media regained a certain freedom of ac-
tion. According to Herodotus, he built Ecbatana, by which is probably
meant that he fortified it and made it his capital city and royal resi-
dence. Undoubtedly he paid tribute to the Assyrian kings at Nine-
veh, but he founded a royal line that was to become great in the cen-
tury after his death.
Deioces' son, Phraortes, reigned, according to Herodotus, from
647 B.C. to 625 b.c. and he extended Median power. Assyria was at
the time occupied with Elamite wars, Babylonian rebellions, Egyptian
intrigue, and incursions by the Cimmerian barbarians. With Assyria
thoroughly occupied, Phraortes could piece together the tribes north
and east of Assyria and put them together into an empire ruled from
Ecbatana — one which was soon to help destroy Assyria.
We can suppose, therefore, that the Arphaxad referred to in Judith
1:1 represents a telescoping of dim memories concerning Deioces and
Phraortes, and is mostly Phraortes.
Ragau
Phraortes' successes roused the concern of Assyria and eventually
there was war between the nations. This is reflected in the Book of
Judith:
JUDITH 689
Judith 1:5. Even in those days king Nabuchodonosor made war
with king Arphaxad ... in the borders of Ragau.
Ragau is the city termed Rages in the Book of Tobit (see page 680).
It is deep within Median territory, so one must envisage a slashing
Assyrian offensive.
In real history, Phraortes ruled when Asshurbanipal (the Asnapper
of the Book of Ezra, see page I-447) was on the Assyrian throne.
Asshurbanipal did attack Phraortes and, according to Herodotus,
Phraortes was defeated by the Assyrian armies, and killed, in 625 b.c.
—the last year of Asshurbanipal's reign.
The dim memory of this war could have been converted into the
battle of Ragau in which Nebuchadnezzar of Assyria defeats Arphaxad
of Media.
Hydaspes
The army which had been gathered by Nebuchadnezzar is de-
scribed:
Judith 1 :6. And there came unto him all they that . . . dwelt by
Euphrates, and Tigris, and Hydaspes, and the plain ... 0/ the
Elymeans, and very many nations of the sons of Chelod.
By and large this isn't bad as a description of the eastern half of
the territory ruled over by the Assyrians (or by the real Nebuchadnez-
zar, for that matter). The sons of Chelod are the Chaldeans, who
were subject to Assyria in the time of Asshurbanipal and who ruled
over the entire Fertile Crescent in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The
Elymeans are the Elamites, whom Asshurbanipal conquered (see
Page 1-455)-
The one serious flaw is the mention of the Hydaspes River. This
is one of five rivers which flow through the Pakistani province of
Punjab (the very name of which means "five rivers"). Its modem
name is the Jhelum River.
The Hydaspes was at or near the easternmost boundary of the
Persian Empire and of the short-lived dominion of Alexander the
Great that followed. Indeed, Alexander fought the fourth of his four
great battles in Asia on the Hydaspes River in 326 b.c.
690
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In attempting to explain that Nebuchadnezzar was drawing his
army from the most distant corners of his empire, the writer of Judith
mentioned the Hydaspes almost automatically, for that was the limits
of an empire with which he was far more familiar than with the
Assyrian.
Nebuchadnezzar also demanded troops from the nations west and
south of Assyria. These are listed in full but, in summary, consist of
Asia Minor, Syria, Israel, Judah, and Egypt. The western lands refused
help and Nebuchadnezzar swore vengeance, then went on to defeat
Arphaxad with the army he had on hand.
Holofernes
With Media conquered, Nebuchadnezzar was ready to turn west.
Judith 2:4. . . . Nabuchodonosor . . . called Holofernes the chief
captain of his army . . . and said unto him,
Judith 2:5. . . . thou shalt go forth from my presence . . .
Judith 2:6. And thou shalt go against all the west country because
they disobeyed my commandment.
Asshurbanipal had, in the course of his reign, actually campaigned
in the west. This was in Egypt, which was in revolt at the time of his
accessions (see page I-390). There is no record, though, that in the
process he inflicted any particular damage upon Judah. During his
reign, indeed, Manasseh (see page I-425) was king of Judah, and he
was loyally pro-Assyrian and had a peaceful reign.
To be sure, the tradition arose that in Manasseh's reign there had
been some trouble with Assyria, for in 2 Chronicles there is mention
made of Manasseh having been imprisoned and taken off to Babylon
(see page I-425). The writer of Judith may have had some vague notion
of Asshurbanipal's western campaign and Manasseh's reputed imprison-
ment.
But who, then, was Holofernes? There is no mention of any such
general anywhere in the records of Assyria or Babylon.
As it happens, three centuries after the reign of Asshurbanipal,
there arose a situation which involved events of a similar nature. It
was the Persian Empire that now ruled western Asia with a mighty
hand, and the monarch on the throne was Artaxerxes III, who reigned
JUDITH 691
from 358 to 338 b.c. Just as Asshurbanipal was the last of the powerful
Assyrian monarchs, so Artaxerxes III was the last of the powerful
Persian monarchs.
Artaxerxes, like Asshurbanipal, had to conduct campaigns in Egypt,
for Egypt rebelled periodically against Persian rule. In fact in 404 b.c,
after the death of the Persian king, Darius II, Egyptian rebellions had
succeeded to the extent where native kings held effective control of
Egypt. The traditional histories list three dynasties, the 28th, 29th,
and 30th, in this period of time. None of the native kings was particu-
larly powerful and most ruled only briefly.
At the time Artaxerxes III came to the Persian throne, Nectanebo II,
last king of the 30th dynasty and, indeed, the last native king ever
to rule Egypt until medieval times, had just come to power. In 346 b.c,
Artaxerxes III, after great preparations, sent an expedition westward
into Egypt. There followed five years of hard campaigning which
crushed Nectanebo II and re-established Persian rule.
And who was one of the generals who led the Persian host? Holo-
femes.
It seems reasonable, then, to suppose that the writer of Judith had
telescoped the Egyptian campaign of Artaxerxes with that of Asshurba-
nipal and made Holofemes, the Persian general, the leader of the
Assyrian hosts.
Joacim
The march of Holofernes is given in detail, with many geographical
names apparently made up out of thin air, for they cannot be identified
with anything on the surface of the Earth. One gathers, however, that
Holofernes struck northwestward from Nineveh, conquered Asia Minor,
then turned south to work his way down the coast, occupying or
devastating Syria, Phoenicia, and Philistia.
It was next the turn of Judea:
Judith 4:1. Now the children of Israel, that dwelt in Judea, heard
all that Holofernes . . . had done . . .
Judith 4:2. Therefore they were exceedingly afraid . . . and were
troubled for Jerusalem, and for the temple . . .
Judith 4:3. For they were newly returned from the captivity.
692
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
This now adds an additional element of anachronism. We have the
Assyria of the seventh century B.C. under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar
of the sixth century B.C., which sends its army under a general of the
fourth century b.c. to attack a re-established Judea of the fifth century
b.c. Not a century is left out.
Nor is the period of re-established Judea left with a mere mention.
Some circumstantial evidence is introduced in the form of the identity
of the high priest.
Judith 4:6. Also Joacim the high priest . . . was in those days
in Jerusalem . . .
Joacim would, in Hebrew form, be Joiakim, and he is mentioned
in the Book of Nehemiah.
Nehemiah 12:10. And Jeshua begat ]oiakim, Joiakim also begat
Eliashib . . .
In other words Joiakim was the son of Jeshua who had rebuilt
the Temple with Zerubbabel (see page I-440) and the father of Eliashib
who had rebuilt the city walls with Nehemiah (see page I-457) . By this
it would seem that the events of the Book of Judith fall just between
those chronicled in the Book of Ezra and those in the Book of
Nehemiah.
Bethulia
Judea girds itself for a despairing defense and sends messages to
strategic places:
Judith 4:6. .. . Joacim . . . wrote to them that dwelt in
Bethulia . . .
Judith 4:7. Charging them to keep the passages of the hill country
. . . and it was easy to stop them that would come up, because
the passage was strait, for two men at the most.
Bethulia is a name that does not occur elsewhere in the Bible.
Some suppose that it might be Shechem for that is located in a nar-
row pass between two mountains (see page I-99) .
However, one can see that the writer of Judith owes a certain
debt to Herodotus. The writer's mythical Nebuchadnezzar brings the
JUDITH 693
huge power of his empire to bear upon a tiny Judea, as the real
Xerxes bore down upon a tiny Greece. Holofernes moves westward
then southward, as Xerxes' general Mardonius did. The inexorable
progress is halted by the tiny Judean army as the other progress was
halted by the tiny Greek army. And the crucial battle is to come at
a narrow pass where a small force can hold off a vast army.
It is useless then to seek Bethulia on the map of Judea; it is sooner
to be found on the map of Greece, for Bethulia is really Thermopylae.
Indeed, as events prove, it is to be a combined Thermopylae and
Marathon.
Judith
Holofernes lays siege to the city of Bethulia and captures its water
supply so that the inhabitants, in the extremity of thirst, are ready to
surrender, a course of action which now comes to the attention of
the heroine of this book.
Judith 8:1. Now at that time Judith heard thereof . . .
Judith is the feminine form of "Judah" and means "Jewish woman."
It is the popularity of this book and the excitement of the story it
tells, and, consequently, the number of times its climax has been
used as an inspiration in art, that has made the name Judith so common
among us.
Judith is given a genealogy that is clearly nonhistorical. The names
cannot be identified and some of them have no parallel elsewhere in
the Bible. She is described as a beautiful and pious widow, her husband
having died three years before.
Bagoas
Judith is indignant at hearing of the news of projected surrender.
She exhorts the elders to hold firm while she puts her own plan into
operation. She dresses herself in all her finery and leaves the city as a
defector. Her beauty assures her respectful treatment and she is brought
to Holofernes. She tells him that the Jews in Bethulia are sinning and
are therefore sure to be beaten. She offers to help Holofernes win,
694
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
provided her own religious scruples are respected and she is allowed
to retire each night to pray in private.
For three days she keeps up a fixed pattern of behavior, getting the
sentries used to seeing her pass out of the camp late each night to
pray.
By the fourth day Holofemes thought he would improve the situa-
tion by having Judith join him at dinner:
Judith 12:11. Then said he to Bagoas the eunuch ... Go now,
and persuade this Hebrew woman . . . that slie come unto us, and
eat and drink with us.
Bagoas is the Greek form of a Persian name meaning "given by
God" and was often used for eunuchs, so that the phrase "Bagoas
the eunuch" was almost a cliche\
The most famous "Bagoas the eunuch" was a renegade Egyptian
in the service of Artaxerxes III at the time of the latter's campaign
against Egypt, the very campaign in which the real Holofemes figured.
For a while, Bagoas was the power behind the throne and taxed and
plundered the subject peoples (including the Jews) remorselessly.
Eventually he aspired to full power. As a eunuch he could not
reign openly, but he might at least exert control over a thoroughgoing
puppet. In 338 b.c. he arranged for the murder of Artaxerxes III plus
all his children but the youngest. The youngest son, Arses, he placed
on the throne and when Arses showed signs of independence, Bagoas
had him and his children killed too, in 336 B.C.
A distant relative of the Persian royal line was then placed on the
throne by Bagoas. The new king called himself Darius III and would
have suffered the same fate as his two predecessors if he hadn't avoided
that by killing Bagoas. This, however, was the only forceful action of
Darius III. Soon he had to face Alexander the Great and the remainder
of his life was one long disaster. He died in 330 b.c. as Persia's last
king. With that, the Persian Empire that had been inaugurated by
Cyrus two and a quarter centuries before came to an end.
The writer of Judith must certainly have known of the wickedness
of the historical "Bagoas the eunuch" and it would be a natural name
for him to give Holofemes' minion.
Judith accepts the invitation, encourages Holofemes to drink to
excess. When the feast is over, all depart to allow Holofemes to have
JUDITH 695
Judith with him in private. By that time, however, Holofemes is in a
drunken stupor and Judith cuts off his head with his own sword.
She wraps the head in the canopy of the bed and retires, ap-
parently for private prayer, as she has done on previous nights. This
time, however, she goes to Bethulia and displays the head. The Jews
are heartened and the Assyrian army, on discovering the death of their
commander, are driven into panic. They flee and are slaughtered by
the pursuing Jews, who are thus (according to the tale) saved from
Nebuchadnezzar forever.
3. 1 MACCABEES
1 MACCABEES ' PHILIP, THE MACEDONIAN • ALEXANDER • ALEXANDER'S
SERVANTS * ANTIOCHUS THE KING * ROME * ANTIOCHUS EPD7HANES ' THE
PLACE OF EXERCISE * PTOLEMY " JERUSALEM * MATTATHIAS * JUDAS
MACCABEUS ' ASSIDEANS • BETH-HORON • PERSIA ' ANTIOCH • THE TEMPLE *
IDUMEA * GALILEE • PTOLEMAIS ' ANTIOCHUS V EUPATOR * DEMETRIUS I
SOTER * THE ROMANS * THE CALATIANS " SPAIN * PHILIP AND PERSEUS *
EUMENES * THE GRECIANS ' BACCHIDES • JONATHAN • ALEXANDER EPrPHANES
• DEMETRIUS II NICATOR * ANTIOCHUS VI " LACEDEMONIANS ' TRYPHON *
SIMON ' ARSACES * ANTIOCHUS VII SIDETES ' JOHN HYRCANUS I
i Maccabees
With Malachi, the canonical books of the Old Testament (according
to the arrangement in the Christian versions of the Bible) come to an
end. The prophetic impulse, as the traditional Jewish view has it,
faded out after the return from the Babylonian Exile, and with the
rebuilding of the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem.
This does not seem actually to be so, since a number of the canonical
books were written well after 430 B.C., when Jerusalem's walls were
completed. In every such case, however, tradition insists on attributing
authorship to a period well before that critical date. Thus, the Book of
Jonah, written as a work of imagination in 300 B.C. or thereabouts,
was attributed back in time to some near contemporary of the historical
prophet, who was active about 780 b.c. Late psalms were attributed
to David; late compilations of proverbs to Solomon, while apocalyptic
writings composed in the Greek period were attributed to worthies
of the period of Exile and Return, such as Daniel and Zechariah.
This meant that historical events after 430 b.c. could never be dealt
with directly and inserted into the Bible. They had to be attributed
to ancients to comply with strict Jewish tradition and therefore had
1 MACCABEES 697
Palestine Under the Maccabees
698
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to be presented in obscure, apocalyptic form, or else remain in the
Apocrypha.
And yet Jewish history was eventful and interesting in the period
between 200 b.c. and a.d. 100; more so in some ways than ever be-
fore. Once again an independent Jewish state was established as in
the days of Saul and David. Once again a colossal catastrophe ap-
proached inexorably as in the days of Jeremiah. Once again prophets
spoke out and changed the world as in the days of the Second Isaiah.
But in the Jewish canon, there is not a whisper of this. For knowW
edge concerning this period we must turn to the Apocrypha, to the
New Testament, and to secular historians such as Josephus.
If we turn to the Apocrypha first, we encounter the books of the
Maccabees (a name that will be explained later). There are five books
grouped under this name, two of which are present in the Apocrypha
since they were included in the Greek versions of the Bible. The first
of these books, 1 Maccabees, is by far the better from the standpoint
of historical value.
Its author is unknown but he was clearly a Jew of rationalist tend-
encies, for the book contains no miracles. It deals with a forty-year
period, from 175 b.c. to 135 b.c, and (unless some of the final pas-
sages are later additions) must have been written some time between
135 b.c. and 100 b.c. by a Palestinian Jew.
It was originally written in Hebrew and a copy of that Hebrew
version was seen as late as a.d. 400 by the Latin churchman, Jerome.
The Hebrew version has not survived to our day, however. Our oldest
versions are in Greek so that the King James Version of the translation
(which I am using in my quotations) makes use of the Greek versions
of the common names. The Revised Standard Version of the transla-
tion changes these, however, to conform with those used in transla-
tions from the Hebrew, as in the canonical books of the Old Testa-
ment.
Philip, the Macedonian
The Book of 1 Maccabees deals with the Jewish rebellion against
overlords of Macedonian descent and the writer therefore begins with
the foundation of Macedonian power over Asia.
The Macedonian conquest took place in the fourth century B.C., a
1 MACCABEES 699
The Western Portion of the Empire of Alexander the Great
time when Judea was comparatively quiet. In fact, the history of the
Jews under the Persians is virtually unknown to us— and this is prob-
ably a sign of the absence of disaster. (Thomas Carlyle said, "Happy
the people whose annals are blank in history-books.")
Josephus mentions a Jewish rebellion against the Persians about
350 b.c. but Artaxerxes III, who was then the Persian king, quickly
crushed it, and did so without much damage. Perhaps the Jews merely
did not get out of the way fast enough when Artaxerxes III marched
westward to put an end to an earlier Egyptian rebellion that had kept
Egypt precariously independent for about fifty years. It is this event
that may have inspired the Book of Esther and the Book of Judith.
In this period, too, a final schism may have taken place between the
Jews and the Samaritans, one that was never healed.
71)0
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Yet while Jewish history was subsiding to a low murmur, great
things were happening in Greece. After the Greeks had hurled back
the attempt of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) to conquer their land, there fol-
lowed a Golden Age that filled the fifth century b.c. Even while
Jerusalem was painstakingly being rebuilt and while Nehemiah was
struggling to give it walls again, the Greek city of Athens produced a
culture that has been the pride of mankind ever since.
The culture went into decline by the end of the fifth century b.c,
however, for a variety of reasons, among which the chief, perhaps,
was the continuing and continual warfare between the Greek cities. By
350 b.c, when the Jews were rounding out a sleepy century after the
time of Nehemiah and were stirring uneasily as Artaxerxes III marched
past them toward Egypt, the Greek cities had ground themselves into
virtual exhaustion. The time was ripe for some outside force to take
over all of them and that force is named in the very first verse of
1 Maccabees:
1 Maccabees 1:1. . . . Philip, the Macedonian . . .
Macedon, or Macedonia, was a land just north of Greece, semi-
barbarian at the time of Greece's golden age, but under strong Greek
influence. Its people spoke a Greek dialect and its ruling classes were
interested in Greek literature and culture. It remained without impor-
tant influence in Greek history until the middle of the fourth century
b.c. when two things happened at once. First, the Greek cities, as I
said before, had exhausted themselves with warfare; and second, there
came to rule over Macedon a most remarkable man, Philip II. It is he
who is referred to in 1 Maccabees 1:1 as "Philip, the Macedonian"
and who is often referred to in our own histories as "Philip of Mace-
don."
Philip seized power over Macedon in 359 b.c. at just about the
rime Artaxerxes III ascended the Persian throne. Philip at once began
to reorganize his army, increase governmental efficiency, extend his
power over surrounding barbarian powers, and engage in cautious
warfare against the Greek cities.
In 338 b.c. Philip defeated the combined armies of the Greek cities
of Athens and Thebes, and made himself the strongest power in
Greece. At the battle, leading the charge which finally decided the out-
come, was Philip's eighteen-year-old son, Alexander.
Once Philip had gained control of Greece, he forced the Greek
1 MACCABEES
701
cities to recognize him as the leader of a united force of Greeks and
Macedonians which he intended to lead against Persia. In 336 B.C.,
however, almost at the very moment when he planned to cross the
Aegean Sea, enter Asia Minor, and begin his Persian War, Philip was
assassinated.
Alexander
Succeeding to the throne was Philip's son, now twenty years old,
who ruled as Alexander III. In view of his amazing career, however,
he is universally known as "Alexander the Great." Alexander began
by re-establishing his father's power against revolts throughout his
dominions, and once again defeated the Greeks. Then in 334 B.C.
he left Greece for Asia.
1 Maccabees 1:1. And it happened, after that Alexander son of
Philip, the Macedonian, who came out of the land of Chettiim,
had smitten Darius king of the Persians and Medes, that he reigned
in his stead . . .
Chettiim, or Kittim, is generally taken as being the island of Cyprus
which contained the Greek city of Kition (see page I-47 ) . Before the
time of Alexander, Kition was the Greek city closest to Judea, and it
was natural to broaden the name to include Greece generally.
Alexander found himself facing a weak adversary when he invaded
the Persian Empire. Artaxerxes III, the last strong Persian monarch,
had died in 338 b.c. and, after a couple of years of confusion, a gentle
and unwarlike (even cowardly) individual succeeded to the throne
under the title of Darius III. He did so just in time to receive the force
of Alexander's invasion.
Alexander quickly won an initial victory over local Persian forces in
northwestern Asia Minor. He then passed through the length of that
peninsula before meeting the main Persian army in the southeast
comer. There he won a great victory in 333 b.c, following which he
marched southward through Syria and Judea (see page I-667).
He took Jerusalem without resistance. Josephus describes the high
priest of Jerusalem emerging from the city in full priestly regalia
to meet Alexander and protect the city. Alexander is then described as
having said he had seen just such a man in a dream, so that he pro-
1 MACCABEES
703
ceeded to treat Jerusalem with respect. This may or may not be true;
there is no evidence for it outside Josephus.
Alexander entered and took Egypt, also without resistance, and di-
rected the establishment of the city of Alexandria (named for himself)
in 332 B.C.
In 331 b.c. Alexander left Egypt and advanced eastward into Bab-
ylonia, where he defeated the Persians in a third great battle. That
was the end of the Persian Empire. In 330 b.c, Darius III was
assassinated by some of his own officials, exactly two centuries after
the death of Cyrus (see page I-442) and Alexander ruled the vast land
in his place.
The Macedonian conqueror spent seven more years marching and
countermarching through the eastern stretches of what had been the
Persian dominion, winning every battle he fought and eventually car-
rying his victorious troops into India.
Here they refused to go any farther and Alexander is supposed to
have wept because there were no more worlds to conquer. In 324 b.c.
he returned to Babylon.
Alexander's Servants
Alexander did not long survive his amazing victories. In 323 B.C.,
at the age of thirty-three, he died:
1 Maccabees 1:7. So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then
died.
1 Maccabees 1 :8. And his servants bare rule every one in his place.
1 Maccabees 1:9. And after his death they all put crowns upon
themselves; so did their sons after them . . .
At Alexander's death, he left behind him a wife, an infant son, a
shrewish mother, and a mentally retarded half brother. None of these
could possibly withstand the ambitions of the powerful generals (Alex-
ander's "servants" in the words of 1 Maccabees) who had been
trained under Philip and Alexander.
The generals fought ceaselessly among themselves for mastery but
none of them won a complete victory. By 301 b.c. it became obvious
that Alexander's empire would never be reunited and that each general
would have to be content with being king over but a portion of it
1 MACCABEES 705
The first to settle down to this new realization was the general,
Ptolemy, who had made himself governor of Egypt immediately after
Alexander's death. He kept this post and, in 306 b.c, assumed the
title of king of Egypt, a title which was to be retained by his descend-
ants (the Ptolemies) for nearly three centuries. Egypt, in this period,
is referred to as "Ptolemaic Egypt."
Another of Alexander's generals was Seleucus, who established him-
self as king of much of western Asia in 306 b.c. His descendants (the
Seleucids) reigned for almost as long as the Ptolemies did and their
dominions are usually referred to as the Seleucid Empire.
There were other kingdoms established upon the ruins of Alexan-
der's Empire, but it was those of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids that
concerned the Jews. In the initial partition of the empire, the eastern
shores of the Mediterranean were divided evenly between the two
kingdoms. The southern half, including Judea, was part of the
Ptolemaic dominion, and the Jews remained under the Ptolemies for
a century.
Syria, to the north of Judea, was part of the Seleucid power from
the beginning. The Seleucids, at the start, reigned also over Babylonia
and the stretches to the east which came to be called Parthia.
It was the Syrian portion of the Seleucid Empire which was closest
to Judea. In later centuries, when much of the eastern portion of that
empire had been lost, its power was centered in Syria, where its
western capital, Antioch, was located. For this reason the Seleucid
Empire is frequently referred to as "Syria," though there is no con-
nection except a geographic one, between Seleucid Syria and the
Syria that fought against Israel in the days of Ahab (see page I-348) .
Antiochus the King
The writer of 1 Maccabees does not pause to detail the history of
the Macedonian kingdoms after the death of Alexander (a history
which would be reasonably well known, in outline at least, to his
original readers) but skips a century and a half to get immediately to
the point:
1 Maccabees 1:10. And there came out of them a wicked wot . . .
son of Antiochus the king . . .
706
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In most of the Hellenistic kingdoms of the time, successive rulers
were known by some one of a very few names, so that there were many
Ptolemies in Egypt and many Antiochuses among the Seleucids. The
modem fashion of numbering kings of the same name was not in use
in ancient times. Instead, each ruler took, or was given, some surname,
usually some very flattering one.
Here, for instance, are the surnames of the first five Ptolemies, who
ruled over Judea as well as over Egypt:
Ptolemy I Soter ("savior"), 306-285 b.c. He was given this surname
in 304 b.c. when he came to the aid of the island of Rhodes at a time
when it was being besieged by another Macedonian general. He was
succeeded by his son.
Ptolemy II Philadelphus ('loving his sister"), 285-246 b.c. He was
so called because late in life, in deference to Egyptian custom, he
married his full sister. The name was applied to the two of them, really.
Under the patronage of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the Museum and Li-
brary at Alexandria made that city the world center of science and
learning. Also under his patronage, the Bible was first translated into
some language other than Hebrew and the Septuagint came into being.
He was succeeded by his son,
Ptolemy III Euergetes ("benefactor"), 246-221 b.c. Under him,
Ptolemaic Egypt reached the peak of its power. He fought the Seleucids
and defeated them, marching victoriously into Babylonia, annexing
much of Syria and even parts of Asia Minor. He was succeeded by his
son,
Ptolemy IV Philopater ("loving his father"), 221-203 B.C. This sur-
name was perhaps a bit of propaganda, for this Ptolemy definitely
ordered the execution of other close members of his family, including
his mother. Some suspect he may have had a hand in the death of his
father, too. Egypt began to decline in his reign. He was succeeded by
an infant son,
Ptolemy V Epiphanes ("god manifest"), 203-181 B.C. The meaning
of this name reflects the fact that in the ancient monarchies the king
was considered the adopted son of the national god and therefore was
himself a sort of god. Of course, the primitive notion of "god" was not
as exalted or abstract as the notions developed by the Jews and Chris-
tians, and the Egyptian view toward a monarch as "god manifest"
might be no stronger than a Jewish view concerning the high priest
or a Christian view concerning the Pope.
1 MACCABEES
707
As for the Seleucid Empire, the following are its early monarchs:
Seleucus I Nicator ("conqueror"), 305-280 B.C., who was followed
by his son,
Antiochus I Soter ("savior"), 280-261 B.C., who was in turn fol-
lowed by his son,
Antiochus II Theos ("god"), 261-246 B.C. In his reign large stretches
of the eastern portion of the Seleucid Empire gained their independ-
ence under native monarchs and the history of Parthia (a name that
is actually a form of "Persia") begins. He was succeeded by his son,
Seleucus II Callinicus ("gloriously victorious"), 246-226 b.c. Despite
his surname, he was deafeated by Ptolemy III Euergetes and the
Seleucid Empire sank to a low ebb. Tom at by Parthians in the east
and Egyptians in the west, his twenty-year disastrous reign closed with
the succession of his son,
Seleucus III Ceraunus ("thunderbolt"), 226-223 b.c, who was
assassinated in the course of a war with a small Macedonian kingdom
in Asia Minor. His younger brother succeeded to the throne. This
brother is Antiochus III and it is he who is referred to in 1 Maccabees
1:10 as "Antiochus the king."
Under Antiochus III, 223-187 b.c, the Seleucid Empire made a
remarkable recovery. As a result of a series of wars, Antiochus III
gradually extended Seleucid power over Asia Minor; he defeated the
Parthian tribes and returned them to Seleucid control; and, finally,
he tackled Egypt
He fought two wars against Egypt. In the first of these, he was un-
successful, losing an important battle at Egypt's borders. When the
infant Ptolemy V Epiphanes came to the throne, Antiochus quickly
tried again. With Egypt distracted by courtiers intriguing for control
of the government, Antiochus was victorious by 198 B.C. As a result
of this war, Judea was wrested from Egypt and passed under the
domination of the Seleucids.
Rome
In a way, though, Antiochus III had been born too late. He
gloried in his victories, which seemed, in his own eyes, to rival those
of Alexander. He called himself therefore Antiochus III Magnus
("great") and is known in our own histories as Antiochus the Great
1 MACCABEES
709
If he had died in 198 b.c. the name might have been deserved, but
he lived on and found himself entangled with Rome, with results
hinted at in the book of 1 Maccabees:
1 Maccabees 1:10. And there came out of them a -wicked root,
Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who
had been an hostage at Rome . . .
The city of Rome, according to Roman legend, had been founded
in 753 b.c. This was when Jeroboam II was king of Israel and Uzziah
king of Judah, when Amos and Hosea were prophesying and when
Isaiah was about to receive his call.
Rome was a kingdom at first but in 509 B.C., shortly after the Second
Temple was dedicated in Jerusalem, it evicted its seventh king,
Tarquinius Superbus, and established the Roman Republic. Little by
little, over the centuries, it increased its power until, by 270 b.c. when
the Jews were under the mild and beneficent rule of Ptolemy II
Philadelphus, the Romans had gained control over the entire Italian
peninsula.
From 264 b.c. to 202 b.c, while the Ptolemies and Seleucids were
continuing their endless wars, Rome fought two gigantic wars of her
own with the North African city of Carthage and eventually won a
complete victory. Her power was established over the large islands
near Italy (Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica) and over the coasts of Spain.
She was the greatest power of the western Mediterranean and her
growing shadow began to darken the east.
Some of the smaller Macedonian kingdoms began to form alliances
with Rome and to seek her protection against the Seleucid Empire,
which, under Antiochus III, seemed invincible. Indeed, even Egypt
had a treaty of friendship with Rome that dated back to Ptolemy II,
and she too called on Rome for help.
Antiochus III, however, felt no need to be concerned about distant
Rome. He considered himself unbeatable and had no hesitation in
moving against the small kingdom of Pergamum in western Asia Minor,
a kingdom which was Rome's ally.
Rome's warning was disregarded and, in 192 b.c, Rome and An-
tiochus were at war. Antiochus III invaded Greece but found that
defeating the Roman army was by no means the same as defeating
the poorly led Egyptian armies or smashing the disorganized Parthian
hordes in the east. In 191 b.c. Antiochus III was badly defeated by the
710
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Romans in Greece. When the disillusioned Sclcucid monarch retreated
hastily to Asia Minor, the Romans followed grimly (setting foot in
Asia for the first time) and defeated him again in 190 B.C.
Antiochus III was forted to make a disastrous peace in 189 B.C. He
had to pay a large indemnity, lose his fleet, and give up Asia Minor.
One of his younger sons— the Antiochus referred to in 1 Maccabees
1:10— was handed over as hostage to the Romans, this serving as a
guarantee that the terms of the treaty would be fulfilled. (The
Parthian sections of the empire seized their chance to break away again,
this time permanently, and the Sclcucid Empire was confined to
Syria and Babylonia. This was still a sizable dominion, for it was
just about the empire ruled over by Nebuchadnezzar.)
In order to pay the indemnity to Rome, Antiochus attempted to
force various temples to give up their store of gold. In one city, in
187 B.C., where he was supervising the looting of the temple, he was
killed by the inhabitants.
Antiochus Epiphanes
Antiochus III was succeeded by his oldest son, Seleucus IV Phi-
lopater, under whom the Seleucid Empire began a slow recovery. The
Romans, to make sure he would cause no trouble, forced him, on his
accession, to send his son Demetrius as a hostage to Rome. Seleucus
was assassinated in 175 b.c. by one of his own ministers, who then
attempted to make himself king.
Meanwhile, Seleucus' younger brother Antiochus, who had been
sent a hostage to Rome, had been well treated there and had grown to
admire Roman institutions. Just about the time that Seleucus was
assassinated, Antiochus had been released (or had slipped away) and
was making his way back to Antioch. He hastened his steps and
managed to seize the throne from the usurper and to take over the
kingship. He became Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
1 Maccabees 1:10. And there came out of them a wicked wot,
Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes . . . and he reigned in the hundred
and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.
1 MACCABEES
711
Seleucus I, the founder of the Seleucid Empire, had begun the
practice of counting the years from a victory he gained in 312 B.C.,
a victory that had enabled him to establish himself firmly in Babylon.
He considered his empire to have been founded at that time and
312 B.C. is therefore the first year "of the kingdom of the Greeks" or,
as we would say today, the year 1 of the Seleucid era. Therefore,
176/175 b.c. would be the year 137 of the Seleucid era and it is in
that year that Antiochus IV gained the throne.
In later years the Jews commonly used the Seleucid era in the course
of their business and commercial transactions at a time when every
kingdom and almost every city had its own methods for counting the
years. As the Jews were scattered widely over the east, their use of the
Seleucid era together with the local systems offered later historians
a useful method of knitting together the various chronologies.
The Seleucid era remained the most important and widespread
manner of counting the years in the Greek-speaking world until the
establishment of the Roman era; that is, the system of counting from
the year of the legendary founding of the city of Rome. (Later still,
the now nearly universal system of counting the years from the birth of
Jesus was adopted.)
The Place of Exercise
Alexander the Great, in conquering the Persian Empire, did more
than merely make himself king over vast tracts of land. He introduced
Greek culture to the east. This culture has always been a very attractive
one and it was widely adopted. All of Asia Minor became Greek in
culture if not in race, and throughout Egypt and Babylonia tendrils
of Greek culture extended. Even in Bactria (the region we now call
Afghanistan) a semi-Greek kingdom was set up which survived for
over a century, from 250 b.c to 135 b.c
The Jews were not immune to the attractiveness of Greek culture,
any more than they were immune to Canaanite culture in the days
of the judges and the kings, or to American culture today. In the
time of the Seleucids, there were many among them who wanted to
"assimilate," and to establish gymnasia after the Greek fashion— some-
thing at which the writer of 1 Maccabees, strongly anti-Greek, stands
aghast:
712
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
i Maccabees 1:11. In those days went there out of Israel wicked
men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant
with the heathen that are round about us . . .
• • • •
1 Maccabees 1:14. Whereupon they built a place of exercise at
Jerusalem according to the customs of the heathen:
1 Maccabees 1:15. And made themselves uncircumcised . . ■
At the gymnasia, the Greeks were accustomed to exercise and to
engage in athletic contests in the nude. (The very word "gymnasium"
is from a Greek word meaning "naked.") This in itself was horrifying
to those Jews who clung to the old ways. Worse still, Jews who
exercised in the nude could clearly be seen to be circumcised; to
avoid this embarrassment, the custom arose of wearing false foreskins,
thus making them "uncircumcised."
This development was, of course, welcomed by the Seleucid rulers.
In the first place they, like all the Macedonian rulers, were seriously
intent on spreading Greek culture, since they felt it to be far superior
to all other cultures.
Then, too, people who clung to old non-Greek ways were more
apt to revolt against the ruler in an effort to establish their independ-
ence so that they might then live their own way freely. This considera-
tion might well apply particularly to the Jews, since they had only
been under Seleucid domination for a quarter of a century and since
many co-religionists remained under the Ptolemies, in Alexandria and
elsewhere. It might well have seemed to Antiochus IV that the Jews
would feel a natural bond to his traditional enemy, Egypt, unless
they became Greek in culture and broke their ties with the well-
treated Alexandrian Jews.
For this reason Antiochus IV did everything in his power to encour-
age the hellenization (the Greeks called themselves "Hellenes") of
Judea. Nor must such behavior be considered as abnormal or unique
to Antiochus. Rather it is common practice in most lands, then and
now, to attempt to unify culture. Here in the United States, immigrants
from lands of widely different language and culture have been en-
couraged to learn English and adopt American ways.
To be sure, such a program works best when it is conducted moder-
ately, letting the dominant culture win its way by its own attractiveness
and convenience, rather than attempting to impose it by naked force.
1 MACCABEES
71?
Ptolemy
Egypt had a new king too. When Ptolemy V died in 181 B.C., his
son, Ptolemy VI Philometer ("loving his mother"), succeeded. He was
a young man who was dominated by his mother, a fact that no doubt
accounts for his nickname.
There remained bad blood between the Ptolemies and the Seleu-
cids despite the overriding menace of Rome, for there was still the
problem of Judea. Antiochus III had been defeated by Rome, but they
had allowed him to retain Judea, which he had taken from the Ptole-
mies, and the Egyptians wanted it back.
Antiochus IV, howeveT, felt no need to return territory that the
Romans had let his father keep. He may even have felt that, in view
of his own years of pleasant stay in Rome, the Romans would look
upon him as one of their own, and favor his enterprises.
Ptolemy's mother remained a force for peace, but after she died,
warfare broke out. It was Egypt, apparently, that struck the 6rst blow,
and in this she proved foolish, for Ptolemy VI was a weak and unwar-
like king (though gentle and humane) while Antiochus IV was a
capable general. Antiochus invaded Egypt in 170 b.c.
1 Maccabees 1:17. Wherefore he [Antiochus IV] entered into
Egypt with a great multitude . . .
1 Maccabees 1:18. And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt:
but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled . . .
Antiochus pursued the retreating Egyptian king to the walls of
Alexandria and actually captured him. The Egyptians, left without a
king, promptly put Ptolemy's younger brother on the throne, as
Ptolemy VII Euergetes II— note the repetition of the surname.
(Sometimes Ptolemy VII is reserved for the young son of Ptolemy
VI, while the brother who now shared his throne is called Ptolemy
VIII. However, there is no great chance of confusion here for the
Ptolemy who was placed on the throne after the capture of Ptolemy
VI is universally known in history not by number but as "Physcon"
or "Pot-Belly" because he grew fat in the course of his long reign. It
714
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
was this Ptolemy VII, or Physcon, by the way, who was referred to
by the translator of Ecclesiasticus, see page I-517. )
Antiochus IV did not feel in a position actually to take Alexandria,
for he was uncertain as to Rome's attitude if he went that far. He
therefore released Ptolemy VI. He felt that with two Ptolemies quarrel-
ing over the throne, Egypt would fall into civil war and one side or
another would call on his help. He would then take over the country
under a show of legality.
The Egyptians, however, outmaneuvered him. The two Ptolemies
decided to rule jointly and did so in peace. The angered Antiochus
threw caution aside and invaded Egypt a second time in 168 b.c.
But now Rome had had enough. A Roman envoy from Alexandria
faced the Seleucid monarch in front of his troops and ordered him to
withdraw. Antiochus had to back down before this single representative
of the distant Roman power and, utterly humiliated, march back to
his own land.
Jerusalem
The Book of 1 Maccabees refers only to the first invasion of Egypt,
the one that was glorious from the standpoint of Antiochus IV. Of
course, even a victorious campaign consumes money and the Seleucids
had been dreadfully short of that commodity ever since Rome had
exacted its indemnity. One way out was to confiscate the hoarded
wealth of temples— something that had been the death of Antiochus
III— and Antiochus Ill's son, returning from Egypt, passed through
Jerusalem and looted its Temple as a matter of course:
1 Maccabees 1:20. And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt,
he returned again in the hundred forty and third year [169 b.c] . . .
1 Maccabees 1:21. And entered proudly into the sanctuary, and
took away the gplden altar . . .
1 Maccabees 1:23. He took also the silver and the gold, and the
precious vessels: also he took the hidden treasures which he found.
The writer does not go on to tell of the second invasion of Egypt
and of its humiliating end for Antiochus, but we needn't rely on
1 MACCABEES 715
secular history only to know of it. The incident is mentioned in the
Book of Daniel (see page I-619):
Daniel 11:30. For the ships of Chittim [Rome] shall come against
him [Antiochus IV]: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and
have indignation against the holy covenant . . .
It seems reasonable enough to suppose that Antiochus IV, half-
maddened with frustration, would be anxious to vent his anger on some
victim. The Jews were weak enough for the purpose and were not pro-
tected by Rome and it is possible, besides, that they angered him further
by being incautiously jubilant over this shameful defeat of the king
who had looted their Temple only two years before.
Antiochus took action:
1 Maccabees 1:29. . . . the king sent his chief collector of tribute
. . . who came unto Jerusalem with a great multitude,
1 Maccabees 1:30. And . . .fell suddenly upon the city, and smote
it very sore . . .
With Jerusalem taken and sacked, Antiochus further decided that
Hellenization was to proceed with all possible speed:
1 Maccabees 1:41. Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole
kingdom, that all should be one people,
1 Maccabees 1 =42. And every one should leave his laws . . .
As a climax of the new policy, the Temple was profaned. Antiochus
decided that Judaism should be brought into line with Hellenism by
identifying Zeus and Yahveh and erecting a statue to Zeus-Yahveh
in the Temple itself, supplying it, very likely, with his own royal face.
To the orthodox Jews this was the greatest imaginable blasphemy:
1 Maccabees 1:54. Now ... in the hundred forty and fifth year
[167 B.C.], they set up the abomination of desolation upon the
altar . . .
To enforce the new policy, Antiochus ordered copies of the Jewish
Scriptures to be destroyed, forbade circumcision and the Jewish dietary
regulations, then executed those caught clinging to the old ways. For a
time it looked as though Judaism would be destroyed and that those
who held out uncompromisingly against Antiochus IV would die as
martyrs.
716
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Mattathias
But now a remarkable family appears on the scene:
1 Maccabees 2:1. In those days arose Mattathias ... a priest . . .
from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin,
Mattathias is the Greek form of the Hebrew Mattathiah ("gift of
Yahveh"). This name is mentioned only once in the canonical books
of the Bible and then only in a post-Exilic incident:
Nehemiah 8:4. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood,
. . . and beside him stood Mattathiah . , .
but it had grown popular in Seleucid times.
According to Josephus, the great-great-grandfather of Mattathias was
named Hashmon (or Asmon, in the Greek form) so that the family
may be called the Hasmonaeans or Asmoneans collectively. When
Jerusalem had been taken by Antiochus' forces, Mattathias and his
family moved to Modin (Modein in the Revised Standard Version),
a town some seventeen miles to the northwest.
Judas Maccabeus
Mattathias had five stalwart sons:
1 Maccabees 2:2. And he had five sons, Joannan Qohanan], called
Caddis:
1 Maccabees 2:3. Simon, called, Thassi:
1 Maccabees 2:4. Judas, who was called Maccabeus:
\ Maccabees 2:5. Eleazar, called Avararu and Jonathan, whose sur-
name was Apphus.
Even among the Jews it was becoming customary to adopt surnames
to serve as identification. In this case, the surnames are of uncertain
meaning, except, possibly, for that of Mattathias' third son : Judas Mac-
cabeus.
This surname is often considered a Greek version of the Hebrew
word "makkabi" ("the hammerer"). It is suggested that the third son
1 MACCABEES 717
is Judas the Hammerer, so called because of the hammer blows he was
soon to inflict upon the Seleucid army. On the other hand, there is some
indication that he had this name before the battles were joined, and
an alternate suggestion is that it is from the Hebrew "makab" ("to ap-
point"). He would then be Judas the Appointed; appointed, that is,
by God to lead his people against the Seleucids.
Judas itself is, of course, the Greek form of Judah. It is very likely that
the heroism of Judas Maccabeus made the name Judas [Judah] so
popular among the Jews in the centuries following.
Because Judas Maccabeus is the hero of what was to follow, the
family has come to be called, in English, the Maccabees— a name that
is more familiar now than the more accurate Hasmonaeans. Similarly,
the Jewish kingdom that was eventually established under their rule is
called the "Maccabean kingdom," and the times the "Maccabean era."
Jewish writings dealing with this period of time are lumped together
as the various books of the Maccabees even when they have nothing
directly to do with the family, and the first of these, the one with which
I am now dealing, is 1 Maccabees.
Assideans
The spark that initiated the Jewish rebellion against the Seleucids
was set off by an officer of Antiochus who came to Modin to enforce
the new laws. He asked Mattathias, as a prominent Jewish leader, to
set a good example and to carry through a sacrifice in the manner re-
quired by law. To Mattathias, this was idolatry and he refused.
However, there were other Jews who were not so insistent on the
old ways. The Seleucid officer, in asking Mattathias to perform the
sacrifice, pointed out that it was being done by the Jews generally:
1 Maccabees 2:18. . . . fulfil the kings commandment, like . . .
the men of Juda . . . and such as remain at Jerusalem . . .
In this, he was probably telling the truth. In aftertimes, a successful
revolution is looked back upon as the rising of a united nation or group,
but most of that is the patriotic gilding of memory, and it is not so. In
all revolutions, those who ardently pursue the fight to the death are in
the minority and there are usually at least as many who are ardently
anti-revolutionary, plus an actual majority that is apathetic and will go
718
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
where they are led (in either direction), if necessary, but who best pre-
fer to be left alone.
Our own Revolutionary War was conducted by a minority of Rebels
who faced not only the British, but Tories who were at least equal
in numbers to themselves. And most colonists did not incline strongly
to either side. And today the Civil Rights movement among Negroes
has, as one of its problems, the apathy of most Negroes.
So it must have been that the Jews in the time of Antiochus were
by no means all bitterly anti-Seleucid. Many were willing to conform;
perhaps even eager, in their pro-Greek views, to do so. Thus, when
Mattathias refused the sacrifice, someone else quickly stepped up to
perform it, either out of conviction or, perhaps, out of the thought
that unless someone did, the entire town would be massacred.
1 Maccabees 2:23. . . . there came one of the Jews in the sight
of all to sacrifice on the altar . . . according to the king's command-
ment.
At seeing this, Mattathias flew into a rage, slew the Jew and the
Seleucid officer. That was the Lexington-and-Concord of the Jewish re-
bellion. Mattathias and his sons had to flee to the hills, and around
them they began to collect other rebels.
In particular, Mattathias was joined by a party of fervid men whose
adherence to the traditional Mosaic Law was absolute:
1 Maccabees 2:42. Then came there unto him a company of
Assideans, who were mighty men of Israel, even all such as were
voluntarily devoted unto the law.
The word Assideans (or Hasidcans in the Revised Standard Ver-
sion) is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Hassidim," meaning "the
pious ones." Their sole concern lay in religion. They were uninterested
in politics and it was only when the practice of Judaism was outlawed
that they were willing to resort to violence.
They were stalwart fighters, but in some ways they were an embar-
rassment, for a truly uncompromising adherence to the letter of the
law can create problems. The many prohibitions that had grown up
concerning the Sabbath day made many pious men feel that it was
unlawful to take even such worldly action on the Sabbath as was re-
quired for self-defense. Thus, Josephus says that when Ptolemy I, in
the first few years after Alexander's death, marched into Judea to estab-
1 MACCABEES
719
lish his dominance over the region, he was able to seize Jerusalem
without resistance by attacking on the Sabbath. The Jews would not
defend the walls on that day.
Similarly, a party of the ultra-pious, tracked down by Seleucid forces
on the Sabbath, decided to let themselves be killed without resisting.
They said:
1 Maccabees 2:37. . . . Let us die all in our innocency: heaven
and earth shall testify for us, that ye put us to death wrongfully.
There is something impressive about such faith, but it is no way to
fight a war. Mattathias and his friends mourned the dead, but they
insisted on a new policy:
1 Maccabees 2:41. . . . Whosoever shall come to make battle
with us on the sabbath day, we will fight against him . . .
Here was an example of adjusting the Law to fit the serious needs
of men, something that was to play a part in the later development
of Judaism and in the teachings of Jesus, too.
Beth-horon
Mattathias did not live long. He was old, and the exertions of the
field took its toll:
1 Maccabees 2:70. And he died in the hundred forty and sixth
year [166 B.C.] . . .
1 Maccabees 3:1. Then his son Judas, called Maccabeus, rose up
in his stead.
But now the forces of the Seleucid Empire were moving to put down
the revolt and, as is often the case, the government began by under-
estimating the seriousness of the trouble. It was, to begin with, left to
the governor of Samaria, Apollonius, the local official on the spot:
1 Maccabees 3:10. Then Apollonius gathered the Gentiles together,
and a great host out of Samaria, to fight against Israel.
Judas Maccabeus came out to meet him. Apollonius was, in all likeli-
hood, overconfident and marched forward carelessly, convinced he
could easily handle a few rebels. That was his mistake. Judas' men
720
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
swarmed down upon him, probably out of ambush, and his army
was defeated. Apollonius himself was killed and Judas took his sword
and used it in later battles.
The Seleucids had to do better than that, and the next step involved
the army itself and a general, Seron. Now it was not the local levies
from Samaria, but the army itself.
1 Maccabees 3:16. And when he [Seron] came near to the going
up of Bethhown, Judas went forth to meet him with a small com-
pany . . .
Beth-horon is about twelve miles northwest of Jerusalem, near Mat-
tathias' adopted town of Modin. Here, Judas and his men lay in ambush
in the surrounding hills and once again a lightning attack caught a
Seleucid army by surprise and destroyed it.
Persia
The Jewish victory at Beth-horon was sufficiently spectacular to raise
the rebellion from a local tumult to an internationally observed mat-
ter. Clearly, the prestige of the regime now required that a major effort
be put into the suppression of the rebels.
Unfortunately for Antiochus it was easier to see the need than to
do something about it. The same old problem arose— lack of money.
Furthermore, the empire was fading at the other end, too. If Judas and
his army of irregulars were shaking the west, in the east whole provinces
were falling away.
The Parthian rulers, who had been subservient to the Seleucids even
as late as the reign of Antiochus III, were little by little enlarging
their independence. In 171 b.c, a vigorous king, Mithridates I,
ascended the Parthian throne and the last vestige of dependence on
the Seleucids disappeared. Indeed, Mithridates extended his power in
all directions and was making himself a major factor in central Asia.
It may be that if Parthia had remained quiet, Antiochus could have
handled the Jewish rebellion. As it was, he found himself pulled in
both directions. His prestige abroad, already badly shaken by his humili-
ation in Egypt, demanded that he not allow the Jews to remain un-
punished. On the other hand, if he could but bring the eastern
provinces back into the fold, he could collect all the money he needed
in the form of a punitive tribute.
1 MACCABEES
721
With prestige pulling one way and money the other, he made the
worst possible decision. He decided to divide his forces and embark
on a two-front war:
1 Maccabees 3:31. Wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind,
he [Antiochus IV] determined to go into Persia [Parthia], there
to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money.
1 Maccabees 3:32. So he left Lysias, a nobleman, . . . to oversee
the affairs of the king from the river Euphrates unto the borders of
Egypt . . .
Antiochus IV left his young son with Lysias, and half his army as
well and his instructions were to wipe out the Jewish rebels.
1 Maccabees 3:37. So the king took the half of the forces that
remained, and departed from Antioch, his royal city, the hundred
forty and seventh year [165 b.c.]; and . . . passed the river Eu-
phrates . . .
722
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Antioch, the "royal city"— that is, the Seleucid capital— was, at this
time, a comparatively young city.
When Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C., Babylon was still the
gratest city of the east, and it was in Babylon that he died. Babylon
remained a great prize for the generals who contended for the crown. It
was captured by Seleucus I Nicator in 312 b.c. and that established him
on the throne of Macedonian Asia and served to mark the date of
the founding of the Seleucid Empire.
Yet the capture by Seleucus was the last important event in Baby-
lonian history. Seleucus was a founder of cities and felt that his cap-
ital ought to be a new city, and not one as old and as hoary with non-
Greek tradition as Babylon was. The year of his conquest of Babylon,
Seleucus therefore began to build a new capital for himself on the
Tigris River some twenty miles north of Babylon. He called the new
city Seleucia, after himself.
As Seleucia grew, Babylon declined. The people left the old city for
the new and the buildings of Babylon served as raw material for con-
struction in Seleucia. By Maccabean times, the mighty Babylon of
Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar was finished and sixteen centuries of
histories closed with a whimper. The city that had carried off the
Jews four centuries before was now a miserably dying village; and
Jerusalem, which it had temporarily destroyed, was still alive after all
and about to embark on a new period of independence.
However, Seleucia was not the only capital. To be sure, it was cen-
trally located and it grew rich and prosperous. If the Seleucids had
remained there and concentrated on the eastern portion of their empire
they might have fused Greek and Persian into a combined society that
would have lasted indefinitely.
Psychologically, though, the Seleucids were always drawn westward.
The Greek core was to the west and the Seleucids were always aware
of the enormous attraction of all things Greek. A few miles of Syria,
or a stretch of the coast of Asia Minor, meant more to them than
a thousand miles of central Asia. So they fought endless wars with Egypt
while vast tracts of the east crumbled. And because of their concen-
tration on the west, they needed a center there.
In 300 b.c, Seleucus had founded a city in northwest Syria near the
Mediterranean. He named it Antiochea, in memory of his father,
the Macedonian general, Antiochus, and we know it as Antioch. This
city, near the Greek thick of things, was ideal as a western capital.
1 MACCABEES
723
Through the succeeding reigns, each successive monarch enlarged and
beautified Antioch. The center of gravity of the Seleucid Empire shifted
westward and by the time of Antiochus IV, Antioch was the major city
of the realm, and stood second only to Alexandria in the Greek world.
The Temple
While Antiochus IV, with half the army, had gone eastward to
Parthia, Lysias was left with the other half to take care of the Jews. It
was far easier for Lysias, however, to receive his instructions than to
carry them out.
In the course of the next year, Lysias sent two armies into Judea
and each was defeated. Judas Maccabeus had shown himself unbeatable
and now he could count on a period of wary peace while the chastened
Seleucids held back to recoup.
It was time, therefore, to rededicate the profaned Temple. Judas
Maccabeus chose priests who had never compromised with the Seleucid
authorities, tore down the profaned altar and buried the stones. A new
altar was built and new vessels supplied, and finally:
1 Maccabees 4:52. . . . in the one hundred forty and eighth
year [164 b.c], they rose up betimes in the morning,
1 Maccabees 4:53. And offered sacrifice according to the law upon
the new altar . . .
1 Maccabees 4:56. And so they kept the dedication of the altar
eight days . . .
1 Maccabees 4:59. Moreover Judas and his brethren . . . ordained,
that the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their
season from year to year by the space of eight days . . .
The anniversary of the dedication of the Temple is celebrated to this
day, by the Jews, as the eight-day feast of Hanukkah ("dedication").
Judas deliberately set the date of the dedication of the cleansed
Temple, on the third anniversary of its profanation, and therefore three
and a half years after the capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV.
This three-and-a-half-year interval is mentioned by the writer" of
Daniel, who was apparently at work on it at this time. Since he placed
724
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the book in the time of the Exile four centuries earlier and had Daniel
relate it as a prophecy, he was forced to use apocalyptic language:
Daniel 7:25. And he [Antiochus TV] shall speak great words
against the most High, . . . and think to change times and laws:
and they [the Temple and the pious Jews] shall be given into his
hand until a time [one year] and times [plus two years] and the
dividing of time [plus half a year].
The Temple was rededicated and Judas fortified Mount Zion, but
there was no opportunity to rest. 'Ihe enthusiasm of the victories would
have declined and faded, if the Jews now remained on the defensive;
the elan and esprit would vanish, the forces disperse, and the revolt
would wither away. Judas apparently decided to pass over to the offen-
sive, and attack the areas bordering on Judca:
1 Maccabees 5:3. Then Judas fought against the children of Esau
in Idumea . . . and he gave them a great overthrow . . .
1 MACCABEES
725
This was not the first example of the rapid about-face of the Jews
from a persecuted minority to an imperial power. Eight and a half
centuries before, David had taken a nation of Philistine vassals and, in
the course of a few years, not only won Israelite independence but
established Israelite hegemony over the Philistines and other sur-
rounding nations.
Here the case was more limited, for the Maccabean state never ap-
proached the physical dimensions or the comparative power of David's
kingdom. Nevertheless, the victory of Judas was the first step toward
the conquest of Edom (or Idumea, which is the Greek version of the
name).
Perhaps the nationalists of the time felt they could justify warfare
against Idumea not only as a matter of traditional enmity, traced all
the way back to the legends of Jacob and Esau (see page I-93) , but
also because during the period of the Babylonian Exile, the Idumeans,
under the pressure of the Nabatean Arabs (see page I-457), had been
forced northward. What was called Idumea in Maccabean times had
been southern Judah in the time of the monarchy, and the Jews may
well have felt they were but retaking what was their own. (Similar
arguments have served as excuse for any number of wars since.)
But it was more than mere conquest. The Maccabeans eventually
enforced Judaism on the conquered Idumeans; doing as they would not
be done by. The case of a religious minority that becomes an oppressor
as soon as it is in power has been seen numerous times in history.
Consider, for instance, the Puritans who fled oppression in England
and came to America for the sake of religious liberty and who then
proved most keen in refusing it to others than themselves. The usual
excuse, in all times, is that the victors are merely exalting Truth over
Falsehood, and are selflessly saving the souls of the losers. The losers,
however, generally have trouble recognizing the good intentions of
those who are so thoughtfully converting them at the point of the sword.
Galilee
The forces of Judas struck outward in all directions, not only toward
the south against Idumea, but eastward against the Ammonites. There
was trouble in the north, too. The Greeks in Gilead (east of the Jor-
dan and north of Ammonite territory) gathered against the Jews who
726
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Galilee
lived there and laid siege to them in one of the Gileadite cities. The
besieged Jews sent letters to Judas and his brothers, pleading for help:
1 Maccabees 5:14. While these letters were yet reading, behold,
there came other messengers from Galilee . . . who reported on this
wise,
1 Maccabees 5:15. . . . They of . . . all Galilee of the Gentiles,
are assembled together against us . . .
Galilee refers to the northernmost section of what had once been
Israel; the territory which, in the time of the judges, was settled by
the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulon.
This northern area was never firmly held by the Israelites. The
Canaanites remained strong in the north long after Joshua's conquest,
as is evidenced by the tales of the battle against Sisera (see page I-238) .
1 MACCABEES
727
Down to the rime of David himself, the Phoenician coastal cities
(inhabited by Canaanites, be it remembered) dominated the north.
To those at the center of Israelite power— farther south among the
Rachel tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin— the north could
well be looked upon as galil haggoyim. This means, literally, "district
of the nations" or "district of the [non-Israelite] tribes."
A Latin word for a tribe or clan was gens and members of the same
tribe or clan were "gentiles." Therefore galil haggoyim could be
translated as "district of the gentiles." Galil became Galilaea in Latin
and "Galilee" in English, leaving us with "Galilee of the Gentiles."
The term Gentile, for non-Jew, is used steadily in 1 Maccabees, and
has come down, in this sense, to modern times. Mormons, however,
apply the word to non-Mormons, so that to a Mormon a Jew is a
Gentile.
References to Galilee prior to the time of the Assyrian conquest and
the destruction of the Northern Kingdom are not found in the Bible.
Prior to that time, the lands of Naphtali and Zebulon are referred to
instead. The turning point comes in Isaiah where the depredations of
Assyria are described and both terms, pre-Assyrian and post-Assyrian,
are used for the area:
Isaiah 9:1. . . . at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun
and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict
her ... in Galilee of the nations.
By Maccabean times, Jewish colonists had begun to penetrate Galilee
once more, but its population was still largely Gentile.
Ptolemais
In the face of this double danger, Judas divided his forces. He and
his younger brother Jonathan, with the smaller army, advanced into
Gilead. His older brother, Simon (another version of the name
Simeon, by the way), led the larger army into Galilee. The division of
forces proved, for once, not to be fatal. Both were victorious and both
were able to evacuate the besieged Jews back to the safety of Judea:
l Maccabees 5:21. Then went Simon into Galilee, where he fought
many battles with the heathen, . . .
728
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
i Maccabees 5:22. And he pursued them unto the gate of Ptole-
mais.
Ptolemais was a city on the Phoenician coast some twenty-five miles
south of Tyre— the southernmost of the Phoenician cities. Its older
name had been Accho and it lay in the territory theoretically assigned
to Asher. The northern tribes never did assert their theoretical suprem-
acy over the Phoenician coast, of course; a fact recognized in the Bible:
Judges 1:31. Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho,
nor the inhabitants of Zidon . . .
The early Ptolemies controlled the area and in 260 B.C., Accho was
renamed Ptolemais in their honor. It kept that name after the area
had been wrested from Egyptian hands by Antiochus III, and indeed
throughout the Roman period long after Ptolemies and Seleucids had
alike vanished.
It resumed its original name after the Moslem conquest in a.d. 638.
In the time of the Crusades, five centuries later, the city was known to
the Christians as St.-Jean-d'Acre or, more simply, Acre. It is now a city
of modern Israel, named Akko, and has a population of some thirty
thousand.
Antiochus V Eupator
The Maccabean attacks were successful, in part, because the Seleucid
Empire was more or less paralyzed by events in Parthia. Antiochus IV
was having no success there. The writer of Maccabees tells of the failure
of his attempt to loot a temple in Elymais and of his falling sick with
grief in consequence; a grief further exacerbated by the news of Lysias'
defeats in Judea.
The story of the temple-looting is undoubtedly a mistake. It is a
tale transferred from Antiochus III (see page 714) to his son, perhaps
through the writer's eagerness to have Antiochus IV sink into utter
failure. His sickness, it would seem from secular sources, was not grief,
but tuberculosis, something more likely to be fatal.
The despoiler of the Temple died in Gabae, a town now known as
Isfahan, in central Iran, nine hundred miles east of Jerusalem.
1 Maccabees 6:16. So king Antiochus died there in the hundred
forty and ninth year [163 b.c.].
1 MACCABEES 729
i Maccabees 6:17. Now when Lysias knew that the king was dead,
he set up Antiochus his son ... to reign in his stead, and his name
he called Eupator.
Antiochus V Eupator ("of noble birth") was nine years old at the
time of his accession. He was controlled by Lysias, who ruled the
empire through him.
The accession of a young king was made to order for the Jewish
rebels under Judas Maccabeus. There were bound to be dynastic squab-
bles and while the various candidates for the throne and for power be-
hind it fought among themselves, the Jews could safely risk the offensive.
In 162 b.c, the year aftet the death of Antiochus IV, Judas even
dared attack the citadel in Jerusalem; that is, the fortress within which
the Seleucid garrison had retired at the time, over a year before, when
the main city of Jerusalem had been taken and the Temple rededicated.
But that attack stirred Lysias, who decided to take a chance on
dynastic troubles remaining in abeyance and mount a strong coun-
terattack (something to which he was urged by parties of loyalist Jews
—the "Tories" of the Maccabean rebellion).
A fresh Seleucid army advanced southward, stronger than any previ-
ous one, and armed with a new type of weapon not hitherto used
against the rebels— elephants. Eleasar, one of the brothers of Judas,
fought his way to one of the beasts, stabbed it in the abdomen, and
killed it, but the elephant, in dying, fell upon Eleasar and killed him
in turn. He was the first of the five sons of Mattathias to die.
Eleasar showed that elephants, too, were mortal, but the Jewish
army was nevertheless facing odds that were too great for it. Fighting
desperately, they were nevertheless slowly pushed toward the edge of
exhaustion through famine.
But then Lysias' gamble failed. He was forced to face a dynastic
problem. A nobleman who had been with Antiochus IV in the east
had now made his way back with what was left of Antiochus' army and
attempted to seize power. Lysias, faced with this threat to the very core
of his policy, was forced to turn away from the trouble in the out-
skirts.
He therefore offered the Jews a compromise peace. Two points were
involved, the religious liberty of the Jews and their political inde-
pendence. Lysias felt that, under the circumstances, he could yield
the first, if the Jews would yield the second. There were important
elements in the rebel army, the Assideans, for instance, who were in-
730
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
terested only in religious liberty, and Judas had to accept the com-
promise. At least, for the time.
Demetrius I Soter
Lysias returned to Antioch, now under the control of his com-
petitor, defeated him and retook the city— but the situation remained
unstable. There were other competitors in the field.
Seleucus IV Philopater, the predecessor and older brother of Antio-
chus IV, had sent a son, Demetrius, into Roman captivity (see page
48). That son of an older brother was, by modern standards, more
deserving of the throne than the reigning monarch, Antiochus V,
who was but the son of a younger brother. Demetrius, when he heard
of the death of his uncle, Antiochus IV, at once petitioned the Roman
Senate for permission to return to Antioch and assume the kingship.
Rome, preferring a weak child on the Seleucid throne to a capable
young man, refused permission and Demetrius promptly escaped and
made his way to the Seleucid coast on his own.
1 Maccabees 7:1. In the hundred and one and fiftieth year [161
B.C.] Demetrius the son of Seleucus departed from Rome, and
came up with a few men unto a city of the sea coast, and reigned
there.
In the civil war that followed, Demetrius was a quick winner.
Antiochus V and Lysias were captured and killed and the new king
took the name of Demetrius I Soter. Rome accepted the reality of the
situation and recognized Demetrius as king.
Demetrius attempted to retrieve the Seleucid position with respect
to Judea, not so much by immediate military action as by first laying
a careful foundation of support for himself among the Jewish "Tories"
of whom there were many.
1 Maccabees 7:5. There came unto him [Demetrius] all the
wicked and ungodly men of Israel, having Alcimus, who was desirous
to be high priest, for their captain:
1 Maccabees 7:6. And they accused the people [the rebel forces] to
the king . . .
With the Tories on the king's side and with the Assideans neutral,
Demetrius felt it timely to send an army into Judea once more. At its
1 MACCABEES
731
head was Nicanor, a general who had been with the king in Rome and,
according to Joseph us, had escaped with him.
Judas, however, had not forgotten how to be a hammerer. Rallying
his forces against a superior enemy yet once again, he met the Seleucid
army at Beth-horon, some fourteen miles northwest of Jerusalem,
and there he won the most remarkable victory of his career (and, as
it turned out, the last). Nicanor himself was slain and once again the
forces of the Seleucid Empire were forced to back off with burnt fingers.
The Romans
For five years now, Judas Maccabeus and his brothers had been
facing superior forces and winning by rapid movement and surprise
and by taking advantage of Seleucid preoccupation with other rebel-
lions and with civil wars. But good luck, and even good management,
cannot be expected to continue forever. What was needed was outside
help, and at that time the smaller nations of the east found their friend
in the new giant of the west, the giant who, in the end, would swallow
them all:
1 Maccabees 8:i Now Judas had heard of the fame of the Ro-
mans . . .
Even as late as the time of Alexander the Great, Rome had been
merely another barbarian tribe of the hinterland as far as the Greeks
were concerned. Possibly no Jew had as much as heard of the Roman
name at the time.
It wasn't until 281 B.C., in fact, that Rome suddenly impinged upon
the Greek world. At that time it was the Macedonian monarchs who
seemed supreme. One of them, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, ruled over
Egypt and under his mild sway Jews were translating the Bible into
Greek. Another, Antiochus I Soter, ruled over the Seleucid kingdom.
Other Macedonians ruled Greece itself and the districts to the north.
In particular, a Macedonian named Pyrrhus ruled over Epirus, a region
northwest of Greece. Of all the Macedonian rulers of his day, Pyrrhus
was the most capable general.
The westernmost portion of the Greek world had, as its chief rep-
resentatives, a number of wealthy cities on the coast of southern Italy.
These cities had been settled five to six centuries before in the days
1 MACCABEES
733
when Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah preached in Israel and Judah. These
cities had always had their troubles with the poorly organized tribes of
the interior and now the martial city of Rome had conquered all
of Italy right down to the seacoast and the Greek cities were terrified.
They called in Pynhus to help. Pynhus eagerly responded and beat
the Romans in two battles. The Romans persevered, however, and in
the end beat Pyrrhus and by 270 b.c. had taken over every Greek city
in southern Italy.
The Greek world ought to have grown alarmed at this point and
united to defeat this strangely powerful newcomer. Unfortunately for
themselves, they miscalculated. The western city Carthage measured its
strength against Rome in two mighty wars, and the Macedonian
kingdoms may have felt the two cities to be so evenly matched as to be
certain to destroy each other.
The Macedonians relaxed therefore, let Rome and Carthage deal
each other mighty blows, and amused themselves by interminable bat-
tling among themselves.
For a while it seemed that the Macedonians had calculated shrewdly
indeed, for both Carthage and Rome came, each in its turn, to the
very edge of disaster. In the end, however, it was not a stalemate but a
complete and utter Roman victory and by 200 b.c. Rome was the
strongest single power in the world.
Even then, the Macedonian kingdoms might have won out if they
could have combined, but the rivalries that had grown up among them
in a century of warfare were too powerful to bury.
The Galatians
Rome, therefore, continued to win victories, and these are sum-
marized in this chapter of 1 Maccabees:
1 Maccabees 8:2. ... It was told him [Judas Maccabeus] also of
their wars . . . among the Galatians, and how they had conquered
them . . .
The Galatians (or Gauls) had moved southward into Italy and
taken Rome itself in 390 b.c. when that city was yet a small power, and
when the Jews were vegetating peacefully under the Persians. Rome
734
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
shook itself free, but the Gauls settled in the rich valley of the Po
River. What is now northern Italy came to be called "Cisalpine Gaul"
(Gaul on "this side of the Alps"— "this side" from the standpoint of
the Romans).
As the Romans grew stronger, the Gauls grew weaker. In 295 b.c.
the Romans inflicted a devastating defeat on the Gauls and by 222 b.c.
they had annexed the whole region of Cisalpine Gaul and extended
their power to the Alps.
This was the more remarkable to those easterners who had been
watching the Roman advance, for even while the Romans were beat-
ing back the Gauls steadily, the Macedonian kingdoms were proving
helpless against barbarians of the same kind.
In 280 b.c, even as Pyrrhus was fighting Rome in Italy, bands of
Gauls raided southward into Macedon and for several years absolute
terror and anarchy gripped that land, and Greece to the south as well.
In 278 b.c. the Gauls crossed over into Asia Minor and devastated
that region. It wasn't until 235 b.c. that they were finally defeated
and tamed. They were then forced to settle down in a region in central
Asia Minor which came to be called Galatia. By that time they had
become civilized and had adopted the Greek culture.
The ease with which the Romans had handled their Gauls could
not but be noted and admired in the east.
Spain
The Romans had won victories outside Italy, too:
1 Maccabees 8:3. And what they [the Romans] had done in the
country of Spain . . .
Even while the Romans had been defeating the Gauls, they had
been fighting the first long war with Carthage to a successful conclu-
sion. After that war, Carthage had tried to recoup by setting up a new
empire in Spain, winning control of the Mediterranean region of that
wild and, at that time, barbarous country.
In 219 b.c, then, shortly after the annexation of Cisalpine Gaul by
Rome, Carthage was ready for a second war. This time the Cartha-
ginian forces were led by Hannibal, one of the very greatest generals
1 MACCABEES
735
of all time. For sixteen years the Carthaginian managed to maintain
himself in Italy, winning great victories and suffering not one real de-
feat.
Rome held on doggedly, however, sending its armies to fight out-
side Italy, even while Hannibal devastated their homeland. In particu-
lar, one of the Roman generals, Scipio, fought brilliantly in Spain,
defeating the Carthaginians there and, in effect, annexing the land to
Rome.
Scipio then went to Africa to attack Carthage itself. Hannibal re-
turned to face him and in a final battle at the north African town of
Zama in 202 B.C. Scipio and Rome won.
Philip and Perseus
The quick summary of Roman progress continues:
1 Maccabees 8:5. Beside this, how they [the Romans] had dis-
comfited in battle Philip, and Perseus, king of the Citims . . .
This refers to happenings after the climactic battle of Zama. Of the
Macedonian kingdoms, the one nearest to Rome was that of Macedon
itself (referred to here as Citims, or more properly Kittim, see page
I-47). Macedon was not the vigorous imperial power it had been under
Philip II and Alexander the Great. The emigration of Macedonians to
the conquered lands in the south and the east, the losses in war, and
the havoc of the raids by the Gauls had reduced its power. Neverthe-
less, it was still strong enough to maintain control over Greece.
In 220 b.c, Philip V, an energetic and capable king, came to power
over Macedon. He watched as Rome locked in deadly combat with
Hannibal and attempted to give Hannibal support. For this, Rome never
forgave him. Once Hannibal was defeated, Rome declared war upon
Philip and, in 197 B.C., inflicted a decisive defeat upon him. Macedon
lost its power over Greece and had to pay Rome a large indemnity. For
the rest of his life, Philip kept cautiously out of trouble.
In 179 b.c, Philip died and was succeeded by his son, Perseus. Care-
fully Perseus prepared for revenge against Rome. His plans, however,
miscarried. His allies betrayed him and he had to face the Roman army
alone. He was beaten in battle in 168 b.c, the very year in which
736
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Antiochus IV was profaning the Temple at Jerusalem. With that defeat
the Macedonian monarchy was ended and Macedon was divided into
four small republics.
Eumenes
If Rome could punish, it could also reward:
1 Maccabees 8:6. How also Antiochus the great king of Asia . . .
was discomfited by them [the Romans];
l Maccabees 8:8. And the country of India, and Media, and
Lydia, . . . they took of him, and gave to king Eumenes.
The Antiochus referred to here as the "great king of Asia" was, of
course, Antiochus III, whose victories, and whose subsequent defeats
by the Romans, were described earlier in this chapter (see page 707-710).
The Eumenes referred to is a king in western Asia Minor. At the
time when the Jews were in Babylonian Exile, western Asia Minor
made up a kingdom ruled by people known to the Greeks as Ludoi.
These were the Ludim of the Bible (see page I-54) and the kingdom
is known to us as Lydia. It reached a peak of prosperity and power
under its king, Croesus, who reigned from 560 to 546 b.c. In 546 b.c.
Lydia was conquered by Cyrus the Persian and its name disappeared
from history. After the time of Alexander the Great, its people were
rapidly hellenized. The Lydian language disappeared and was re-
placed by Greek.
In 283 b.c, when Asia Minor was loosely connected to the newly
founded Seleucid Empire, a certain Macedonian viceroy named Phile-
taeros ruled over the city of Pergamum, in what had once been Lydia.
He managed to make himself independent of the Seleucids after the
death of Seleucus I Nicator and thus was founded the kingdom of
Pergamum.
The nephew of Philetaeros succeeded to the throne as Eumenes I
in 263 b.c. Soon after his accession he defeated Antiochus I, the sec-
ond Seleucid monarch, and confirmed the independence of Pergamum.
At this time the Gauls were creating havoc in Asia Minor, so that
independence was a doubtful boon.
Eumenes I was succeeded by his nephew, Attalus I, however, in
1 MACCABEES 7>7
241 b.c. and he managed to defeat the Gauls decisively in 235 b.c. That
ended the Gallic menace and raised the prestige of Pergamum sky-
high. It prospered under enlightened rule and learning was encour-
aged to the point where the library in Pergamum was second only to
Alexandria in size and excellence. (Indeed, the jealous Ptolemies re-
fused to export papyrus to Pergamum, thus depriving them of the
material on which to copy books. The Pergamese invented a method
of treating animal skins for the purpose— more permanent but also
more expensive— and this gave us "parchment," a word derived from
"Pergamum.")
In 197 b.c, Attalus I died and his son, Eumenes II, became king.
This is the Eumenes of 1 Maccabees 8:8.
Eumenes II found himself facing Antiochus III at the height of
that monarch's success, and for a while it looked as though Antiochus
would retake all of Asia Minor. Eumenes II appealed to Rome, which
had just beaten Philip V of Macedonia.
Rome responded and after defeating Antiochus III (with the army
of Eumenes fighting alongside the Roman legions) his Asia Minor
conquests were handed over to Pergamum, which now reached the peak
of its power.
The writer of 1 Maccabees lists Lydia, Media, and India as being
handed over to Pergamum. This is overenthusiastic of him. Lydia,
representing the western half of Asia Minor, did, to be sure, make
up the kingdom of Pergamum after the defeat of Antiochus. Indeed,
Pergamum was almost Lydia come back to existence— but a Greek-
speaking Lydia.
India and Media were, however, not given to Pergamum. They
were far to the east and not even Rome could give them to anybody.
Nevertheless, as the direct consequence of Antiochus' defeat, India,
Media, and other eastern sections of the Seleucid Empire regained a
permanent independence. If Pergamum did not gain them, the Seleu-
cid Empire lost them.
The Grecians
And finally:
1 Maccabees 8:9. Moreover how the Grecians had determined to
come and destroy them [the Romans];
738
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
i Maccabees 8:10. And that they [the Romans] . . . fighting
with them [the Greeks] slew many of them, and carried away
captives . . .
To say that the Greeks had "determined to come and destroy" the
Romans is to give entirely too much credit to the poor Greeks. They
were in no position at the time to destroy anyone but themselves,
but the writer of 1 Maccabees was living at a time when the Jews were
intensely anti-Greek and this is reflected in the verses.
Actually, the crime of the Greeks was that some of their cities
(united in what was called the "Achaean League") had, in the eyes
of Rome, not been sufficiently active in supporting the Romans against
Perseus of Macedon. The Greeks could not at that time possibly resist
the power of Rome, and for Rome, attacking the Achaean League
was like snatching a rattle from a baby. A thousand leading Greeks
were carried away captive to Rome in 168 b.c.
Bacchides
Rome's conquests, its loyalty to its friends, its republican form of
government, and its civic virtue are all described with a kind of lyrical
exaggeration. Certainly there seemed some justification for the Jewish
hope (at this time) in Rome.
Her defense of Pergamum against the Seleucids, and her strengthen-
ing of Pergamum at Seleucid expense, were very impressive. Surely, if
Judea formed an alliance with Rome, similar benefits would befall
her. (Of course, Rome supported her allies for her own reasons and,
in the end, absorbed them all, enemies and allies alike, but the writer
of 1 Maccabees did not have the advantage of our hindsight.)
The writer describes the emissary sent by Judas to Rome and the
treaty of alliance formed with Rome, but one can only wonder if such
an alliance were really formed. Perhaps it was merely reported by the
forces of Judas as a kind of "war of nerves" against the Seleucids,
who had ample reason to be in dread of the very name of Rome.
If the alliance was merely a propaganda weapon, it failed; and if it
was real, it was a dead letter. Demetrius proceeded to move again
against the rebels and Rome did nothing to help Judas.
1 MACCABEES 7}9
i Maccabees 9:1. . . . when Demetrius heard that Nicanor and
his host were slain in battle, he sent Bacchides and Alcimus into
the land of ]udea the second time, and with them the chief strength
of his host:
1 Maccabees 9:3. .. . the first month of the hundred fifty and
second year [160 B.C.] they encamped before Jerusalem:
The forces of Judas had themselves suffered numerous casualties in
the fight against Nicanor, and in the face of a fresh army of Seleucids
and Tories the spirits of many quailed. There were massive desertions
and Judas found himself with only eight hundred men left.
The sensible thing to do was to retreat, but if he did that he would
have been left without an army. A brave battle and an inspiring death
might be better in the long run. That was the path he chose. In the
battle that followed, the small band of rebels fought desperately, but
the sheer weight of the enemy was insurmountable and they were
virtually wiped out.
Judas Maccabeus died, with the rest, in 160 B.C., seven years after
his father had sounded the trumpet call of revolt.
With the death of Judas, the Seleucids were, for the moment, trium-
phant, and Judea was now completely in the hands of the pro-Seleucid
Jews:
1 Maccabees 9:23. Now after the death of Judas the wicked began
to put forth their heads in all the coasts of Israel, and there arose up
all such as wrought iniquity.
• • • •
1 Maccabees 9:25. Then Bacchides chose the wicked men, and
made them lords of the country.
1 Maccabees 9:26. And they made enquiry and search for Judas'
friends, and brought them unto Bacchides, who took vengeance of
them . . .
Yet the defeat was not total. Demetrius had learned by the mistake
of Antiochus and the laws against Judaism were not revived; the
Temple was not profaned once more. The revolt had been a political
failure, but it seemed to be a religious success.
Or was it? Could it not be that where force had failed, gradual
assimilation under the guidance of a Tory high priest might succeed?
740
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jonathan
Judea was not to have a chance to find out, however. Two of the
sons of Mattathias were dead, fallen in war against the Seleucids.
Three remained, John the eldest, Simon the second, and Jonathan,
the fifth and youngest.
It was Jonathan, who had already displayed talent as a leader of
men, to whom the surviving rebels turned in the dark days after Judas'
death, when the Seleucid general, Bacchides, controlled the country
through his puppet high priest, Alcimus.
1 Maccabees 9:28. For this cause all Judas' friends came together,
and said unto Jonathan,
1 Maccabees 9:30. ... we have chosen thee this day to be our
prince and captain . . .
1 Maccabees 9:31. Upon this Jonathan took the governance upon
him . . . and rose up instead of hit brother Judas.
The arms of the rebels were indeed feeble at this time, however.
They could scarcely make head against the powerful Bacchides with-
out help. John, the eldest brother, was sent to the Nabatean Arabs
for such help and he was treacherously slain by them in 159 b.c. Only
Jonathan and Simon were left now.
Fighting desperately, they led their rebel band to temporary safety
across the Jordan River into the wilderness of the Transjordan:
1 Maccabees 9:48. Then Jonathan and they that were with him
leapt into Jordan, and swam over unto the farther bank . . .
1 Maccabees 9:50. Afterward returned Bacchides to Jerusalem, and
repaired the strong cities in Judea . . .
But Jonathan, safe in the Transjordan, mounted perpetual raids
against Judea, and defeated or eluded all parties sent out after him.
Eventually the Seleucids grew weary of endless petty fighting that
drained their energies and weakened them in other more vital direc-
tions. They came to agreement with Jonathan; let him rule Judea as
1 MACCABEES 741
long as he maintained the peace of the kingdom and recognized
Seleucid overlordship.
Alexander Epiphanes
This was, perhaps, an unstable situation, but it did not last long.
After Demetrius I Soter had ruled, with comparative ability, for ten
years, dynastic squabbles once again upset the Seleucid monarchy:
1 Maccabees 10:1. In the hundred and sixtieth year [152 B.C.]
Alexander, the son of Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, went up and
took Ptolemais . . .
Actually, this Alexander was an impostor of obscure origin, whose
real name was Balas. He pretended to be a son of Antiochus IV, and
therefore a brother of the young Antiochus V Eupator whom De-
metrius I had had killed.
Fortunately for himself, this Balas (known to us most commonly as
Alexander Balas) had powerful support abroad. The Egyptian king,
Ptolemy VI Philometer (see page 713) , and the new king of Per-
gamum, Attalus II, who had succeeded his older brother Eumenes II
in 160 B.C., both favored Alexander Balas. This was not because they
believed Balas' claim to be the legitimate king, but because they were
willing to do anything that would weaken their old enemy, the Seleucid
Empire.
Both Pergamum and Egypt were allies of Rome, and Rome remem-
bered now, perhaps, that Demetrius had become king without their
permission (see page 730) . At any rate, Rome, too, lent its support to
Alexander Balas.
Demetrius was desperate. His troops might easily desert to the rising
star of the impostor and he needed some reliable men to fight on his
side. What about the Jews fighting under Jonathan? He had the best
evidence that they were fierce fighting men and they might be bought.
It was with that in mind, perhaps, that Demetrius named Jonathan to
the post of governor of Judea.
With that appointment in his hand, Jonathan was able to take up
residence in Jerusalem and suppress the pro-Seleucid faction which had
been in power since the death of Judas eight years before.
742
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
To compete with this, Alexander Balas promptly offered Jonathan
the post of high priest. This was a departure from custom. Till now the
Seleucids had merely confirmed high priests who had been appointed
by the Jews; this, however, was a direct Seleucid appointment. Never-
theless, Jonathan did not stand too firmly on the fine points but ac-
cepted:
1 Maccabees 10:21. So in the seventh month of the hundred and
sixtieth year, at the feast of the tabernacles, Jonathan put on the
holy robe . . .
Jonathan may have chosen this time of the year deliberately to take
psychological advantage of a Messianic prophecy. A century before
certain prophetic writings had appeared which were attributed to the
earlier prophet Zechariah (see page I-664). These spoke of the ideal
king receiving worship from all at the feast of the tabernacles:
Zechariah 14:18. . . . the Lord will smite the heathen that come
not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Jonathan might be well aware that the rigorously pious could not
help but disapprove of a high priest who was not of the direct line
of earlier high priests and who was but the appointee of a heathen
king. By using Zechariah 's words, he might have answered such objec-
tions in the eyes of the people generally, and he inaugurated a new
high-priestly line that was to continue for over a century.
Demetrius again raised the stakes and finally granted Judea in-
dependence, adding to it Samaria and Galilee. Jonathan, however,
remained with Alexander Balas. Either his resentment against De-
metrius as the conqueror of Judas and the oppressor of the Jews was
too great or, as is more likely, his cool estimate of the situation was that
Demetrius was going to lose and his promises would not be kept.
In 150 b.c, Demetrius and Alexander Balas finally met in battle.
Alexander was completely victorious and Demetrius was slain on the
field of battle after a twelve-year reign. Alexander Balas ascended the
throne in Antioch as Alexander Epiphanes.
Alexander Balas remembered his allies, forming a marital alliance
with Egypt by marrying Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy VI. The two
kings met with much ceremony, in Ptolemais, and Jonathan was called
1 MACCABEES 743
to the city to meet with them, too. There he was confirmed in his rule
over Judea.
Demetrius II Nicator
This interval of happy-ending-for-everyone was not to continue. The
only thing, it seemed, that ever continued was dynastic rivalry. The
dead king, Demetrius I, had a son, another Demetrius, who was abroad
in exile. He now returned, and with him was a band of Cretan mer-
cenaries:
1 Maccabees 10:67. • ■ • ' n tne hundred threescore and fifth year
[147 B.C.] came Demetrius son of Demetrius out of Crete into the
land of his fathers . . .
The civil war was renewed and the Jews were deeply involved, for
the new Demetrius was completely hostile to Jonathan, who, after all,
had turned against his father and had supported the usurping Alexan-
der. The Jews, however, as in the days of Judas, withstood Demetrius'
general, Apollonius, and won a resounding victory.
Ptolemy VI of Egypt, observing the new civil war, could not resist
interfering. To be sure, he had placed Alexander Balas on the throne
and had given him his daughter in marriage, but why be satisfied with
an ally when you can have the kingdom itself?
The Egyptian monarch therefore invaded the Seleucid dominions,
taking advantage of the confusion of the renewed civil wars. He passed
by Judea without incident and took Antioch, making himself, for the
moment, ruler of the Seleucid realm as well as of Egypt.
Alexander Balas, who was in the northern provinces at the time,
dealing with a local rebellion, hastened to Antioch and the two armies
met and fought in 145 b.c. Alexander Balas was defeated and his five-
year reign was ended. He fled to Arabia, where he was murdered. The
victor, Ptolemy VI, had been wounded in battle, however, and died
soon after.
This left Demetrius the only contender remaining in the field and by
default he became king as Demetrius II Nicator ("conqueror").
1 Maccabees 11:19. By this means Demetrius reigned in the
hundred threescore and seventh year.
744
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Antiochus VI
By now, however, the everlasting dynastic minuet had had deadly
results. Mithridates I (see page 720) was still king of Parthia, and all
the while that the Seleucid kings had been fighting useless battles in
the west and growing steadily weaker, he had been expanding his own
power constantly. In 147 B.C., just when Demetrius II had landed on
the Seleucid shores, the Parthians took Babylonia, driving the Seleucids
from an area that had been theirs for a hundred and fifty yean.
The great empire which had been two thousand miles wide even
as late as the time of Antiochus III had, in a mere half century, shrunk
to almost nothing. It had come to include little more than the province
of Syria.
Demetrius at the head of a mere nubbin of what had once been the
Seleucid Empire— a nubbin, moreover, bled white by continuing war-
fare—found himself short on funds. Desperately he tried to economize
at the expense of his army. This is certainly the most effective means of
economizing from a sheer dollars-and-cents point of view since the
army is almost always the greatest swallower of funds, but as many
rulers both before and after the time of Demetrius II have found out,
such economy is virtually suicide when the army controls the govern-
ment.
A discontented army is bound to be a tempting tool in the hands of
any ambitious general; especially since the old king, Alexander Balas,
still had a young son in exile, one who might serve as a useful rallying
device:
1 Maccabees 11:39. • • • there was one Tryphon, that had been of
Alexander's part afore, who, seeing that all the host murmured
against Demetrius, went to Simalcue the Arabian, that brought up
Antiochus the young son of Alexander,
1 Maccabees 11:40. And lay sore upon him to deliver him this
young Antiochus, that he might reign in his father's stead . . .
Meanwhile Jonathan was trying to profit once again through Seleucid
troubles and offered to strike a bargain with Demetrius. Jonathan
had been besieging the citadel in Jerusalem, which was still, after all
this time, in Seleucid hands, and was not succeeding. He offered
1 MACCABEES 745
therefore to help Demetrius against his disaffected army, in return for
Seleucid evacuation of the citadel.
Demetrius gladly accepted a contingent of three thousand tough
Jewish fighters and used them to put down disorders in Antioch. He
would not, however, abandon the citadel, and the outmaneuvered
Jonathan waited angrily for the chance to strike back.
The chance came soon enough. Tryphon had managed to talk
Simalcue into releasing his ward and, returning with him, raised the
standard of revolt:
1 Maccabees 11:54. After this returned Tryphon, and with him
the young child Antiochus, who reigned, and was crowned.
This was in 143 B.C. and the new boy king reigned as Antiochus VI
Epiphanes Dionysus. He was merely a puppet, of course. The real
ruler was Tryphon.
This was Jonathan's chance. He promptly transferred his support to
the young Antiochus.
Lacedemonians
Apparently Jonathan during this period strove further to strengthen
his appearance by judicious alliances abroad. The writer of 1 Maccabees
chooses to describe two such alliances in detail, but out of considera-
tions of prestige only, for neither alliance ever helped Jonathan. The
first was a renewal of the alliance with Rome, which (if it existed at
all) had been ineffective so far and continued ineffective.
The other was still more useless:
1 Maccabees 12:2. He [Jonathan] sent letters also to the Lacede-
monians . . .
The Lacedemonians are the people living in Lacedemon, a region
more commonly known to us as Sparta. They are therefore the Spartans.
Sparta, a city in southern Greece, had had a great history. In the
time of Nebuchadnezzar and the Jewish Exile in Babylon, Sparta had
been the most powerful of the Greek cities and it maintained this
position for two additional centuries. Together with Athens, Sparta had
defeated the Persian invasion under Xerxes (Ahasuerus) in 479 b.c.
746
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Sparta*
Then, after a long war with Athens, Sparta emerged victorious in
404 b.c. and for thirty years controlled Greece.
In 371 b.c, however, the Spartans had been defeated by the army
of the Greek city of Thebes and, at one blow, fell from power and
never regained it.
Sparta retired into sulky isolation. They refused to join the armies
of Alexander the Great in his conquest of Persia (the only mainland
Greeks to refuse) for they insisted that only Spartans could lead such
an army. They were defeated on several occasions by Macedonian
armies thereafter and, by the time of the Maccabees, Sparta had been
reduced to a complete nonentity. Her alliance was worth nothing
except, perhaps, for the glow cast about her by the glamour of her name
and past history.
1 MACCABEES
747
Hie basis of this alliance between Jews and Spartans was made a
matter of family relationship. The writer of 1 Maccabees quotes letters
that were supposed to have passed between the two peoples a century
and a half before. These were quoted as saying:
1 Maccabees 12:21. It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians
and Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham . . .
This is an odd tradition that could only have been inspired to en-
courage a political marriage of convenience. No one takes it seriously,
even though some scholars now maintain that Hebrew and Greek
civilizations may have had some strands of origin in common.
Tryphon
But Tryphon wearied of the indirection of possessing power under
the cover of the boy Antiochus VI and decided he would prefer the
role of king, undisguised:
1 Maccabees 12:39. Now Tryphon went about to get the kingdom
of Asia, and to kill Antiochus the king, that he might set the crown
upon his own head.
This, he feared, might alienate his strongest ally, Jonathan. In order
to prevent that, he maneuvered the Jewish leader into a trap, inviting
him to come to Ptolemais with a small escort. For once, Jonathan's
shrewdness deserted him and he accepted the invitation.
1 Maccabees 12:48. Now as soon as Jonathan entered into Ptol-
emais, they of Ptolemais shut the gates, and took him . . .
With that done, Tryphon felt that there would be sufficient confusion
and uncertainty in Judea to make invasion of the land easy. In the
course of this invasion, he rid himself finally of his two encumbrances:
1 Maccabees 13:23. And when he came near to Bascama, he slew
Jonathan, who was buried there.
• • • .
1 Maccabees 13:31. Now Tryphon dealt deceitfully with the young
king Antiochus, and slew him.
1 Maccabees 13:32. And he reigned in his stead, and crowned
himself king of Asia . . .
748
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
This was in 142 b.c. Jonathan had led the Jewish forces for eighteen
years with skill and ability and would be better known today if his
career had not been overshadowed by the shorter but more glamorous
one of his older brother, Judas.
Simon
But even now, one son of Mattathias was left alive; Simon, the
second oldest. He was quickly elected the new leader:
1 Maccabees 13:8. And they [the people] answered with a loud
voice, saying, Thou [Simon] shalt be our leader instead of Judas
and Jonathan thy brother.
Simon attempted to ransom Jonathan but failed and when it was
certain that Jonathan had been killed, he obtained the buried body
and reburied him in Modein, the city where the Jewish revolt had
broken out a quarter century before.
Simon prepared himself for renewed war:
1 Maccabees 13:33. Then Simon built up the strong holds in
Judea, and fenced them about . . . and laid up victuals therein.
Furthermore, Simon now approached Demetrius II Nicator, who, all
during the period of time when first Antiochus VI and then Tryphon
had called themselves kings, had maintained an army and had insistently
held on to his own claim. In return for Simon's offer of help, Demetrius
now finally granted Judea formal independence:
1 Maccabees 13:41. Thus the yoke of the heathen was taken away
from Israel in the hundred and seventieth year [142 b.c.].
1 Maccabees 13:42. Then the people of Israel began to write in
their instruments and contracts, In the first year of Simon the high
priest, the governor and leader of the Jews.
Independence was thus won a quarter century after the beginning
of the revolt. The independence was symbolized by altering the system
of dates. The year 142 b.c, which was Year 170 of the Seleucid era,
became Year 1 of the "Era of the Maccabees."
Simon was religious and military leader of the Jews, having suc-
ceeded his brother as high priest and general. He did not call himself
1 MACCABEES 749
king, however. Perhaps he felt that, not being of the Davidic line,
he could not be a true king of the Jews.
Soon after the gaining of their independence, the Jews successfully
completed their long siege of the citadel in Jerusalem with its Seleucid
garrison. The garrison, facing starvation, surrendered:
1 Maccabees 13:50. . . . and when he [Simon] had put them
[the garrison] out from thence, he cleansed the tower from pollu-
tions:
1 Maccabees 13:51. And entered into it the three and twentieth
day of the second month, in the hundred seventy and first year
[141 B.C.] . . .
And for the first time since Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusa-
lem 445 years before, the land of Judah was completely free and the
foot of no foreign soldier was to be found in Jerusalem. That freedom,
alas, was to last no more than eighty years and was not to remain un-
broken even in that short period.
Arsaces
Demetrius, having secured Jewish aid against Tryphon, attempted
to strengthen himself in the east as well in preparation for the final
showdown with the usurping general:
1 Maccabees 14:2. But when Arsaces, the king of Persia and
Media, heard that Demetrius was entered within his borders, he sent
one of his princes . . .
1 Maccabees 14:3. Who went and smote the host of Demetrius,
and took him, and brought him to Arsaces . . .
Almost all the kings of Parthia (referred to here as Persia and
Media) bore the throne-name of Arsaces, so that the entire dynasty
is referred to as the Arsacids. The king who fought against Demetrius
was the same Mithridates I who had come to the throne in the time
of Antiochus IV and who was now approaching the end of his long
reign of more than thirty years. His throne name was Arsaces V
Epiphanes.
In 147 B.C., Mithridates I had taken Babylonia from the Seleucids
and now, in 139 b.c, he capped his career by taking prisoner the
750
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Seleucid monarch himself, the great-grandson of Antiochus the Great.
Mithridates treated Demetrius kindly, however, and even gave him his
sister's hand in marriage.
And meanwhile Simon ruled in peace over Judea and the power was
made hereditary in his descendants.
Antiochus VII Sidetes
The imprisoned Demetrius had, abroad, a younger brother, Anti-
ochus, who was now to make the attempt to seize the kingdom. He
confirmed the independence of the Jewish state to avoid trouble in
that direction, and then invaded the land:
1 Maccabees 15:10. In the hundred threescore and fourteenth
year [138 b.c] went Antiochus into the land of his fathers: at
which time all the forces came together unto him, so that few were
left with Tryphon.
Tryphon was eventually forced to flee the land and Antiochus was
accepted as monarch, ruling as Antiochus VII Euergetes, although he
is far better known as Antiochus VII Sidetes. The surname "Sidetes"
is derived from the fact that he was brought up in the town of Side in
southern Asia Minor.
Antiochus VII was the last vigorous monarch of the Seleucid line.
Having gained the throne, he visualized the restoration of his kingdom
to its former glories and broke with Simon. Once again (and for the
last time) Judea found itself facing the threat of Seleucid invasion.
John Hyrcanus I
But Simon was growing old and was eager to transfer the responsibili-
ties of government to younger men. He had three stalwart sons: Judas,
John, and Mattathias:
1 Maccabees 16:2. Wherefore Simon called his two eldest sons,
Judas and John, and said unto them . . .
1 Maccabees 16:3. ... I am old . . . be ye instead of me . . .
and go and fight for our nation . . .
1 MACCABEES
751
Unfortunately, Simon had also a son-in-law, Ptolemy, who coveted
power for himself. He therefore invited his father-in-law and brothers-
in-law to a banquet.
1 Maccabees 16:14. . . . in the hundred threescore and seven-
teenth year [134 b.c] . . .
Simon, Judas, and Mattathias came and, after they had drunk
enough to be harmless, Ptolemy had them disarmed and murdered.
Thus died Simon, the last of the five sons of Mattathias the priest,
eight years after he had assumed the rule and thirty-three years after
the beginning of the Jewish rebellion.
With the death of Simon, the Book of 1 Maccabees comes to an
end. It is worth while, however, to add a short epilogue.
For a time it seemed that the early years of the rebellion had re-
turned. Simon's remaining son, John (better known as John Hyrcanus),
took to the hills with a guerrilla band to fight Ptolemy, who played
the role of the Jewish Tories of the previous generation and called in
Antiochus VII.
In 133 b.c. Antiochus invaded Judea and, after a prolonged siege,
took Jerusalem. He accepted a large tribute, however, and left the land.
Then in 130 b.c, Antiochus VII, elated by his successes, turned
to the east. Perhaps he could still win back the eastern provinces. The
formidable Parthian king, Mithradates I, had died in 138 B.C. and had
been succeeded by Phraates II (also called Arsaces VI Euergetes)
and it may be that Antiochus felt the new king would be less vigorous
than the old.
If so, he miscalculated. In 129 b.c. the Parthians won a great victory
over Antiochus, who was killed. His brother, Demetrius II, was then
released from Parthian imprisonment (that had endured ten years)
and became the Seleucid king again. He remained so until 125 b.c,
when he died and was succeeded by his son, Antiochus VIII.
However, with Antiochus VII had died every spark of Seleucid vigor.
The kingdom was just a shadow now, destined to drag on in in-
glorious existence for another half century, but of no account what-
ever in international affairs.
Judea could ignore it and, under the rule of John Hyrcanus, it ex-
panded its territories and entered into a half-century period of prosper-
ity and glory. It was John Hyrcanus who felt himself strong enough to
force the Idumeans to accept Judaism. He reigned till 104 b.c. and
752
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
his son succeeded and, finally, found the dynasty to be well enough
established to deserve the title of king.
For the first time since the destruction of the First Temple nearly
five centuries before, the Jews had a king— but not, of course, of the
line of David.
4. 2 MACCABEES
JASON OF CYRENE • NAPHTHAR * JUDAISM ■ ONTAS • SELEUCUS " SIMON ■
JASON THE BROTHER OF ONIAS ■ MENELAUS ' DAPHNE ■ ELEAZAR ■ ALCIMUS
• 3 MACCABEES
Jason of Cyrene
The second Book of Maccabees, written perhaps a century later
than the first, is not a continuation of the first, but is rather a parallel
history covering only the period to the death of Judas Maccabeus.
Whereas l Maccabees is primarily secular in character, 2 Maccabees
centers to a much greater extent on the story of the high-priestly fac-
tions and is primarily interested in religion.
It declares itself to be the abridgement of a much larger work:
2 Maccabees 2:23. All these things, I say, being declared by Jason
of Cyrene in five books, we will assay to abridge in one volume,
Cyrene was a city on the north African coast about five hundred
miles west of the Nile. It was founded by Greek colonists in 631 b.c.
when Josiah ruled in Judah. It was at Cyrene that Pharaoh-hophra's
soldiers rebelled and declared Aahmes to be their king (see page I-580).
It was taken by Alexander the Great in 331 b.c. and it became part of
Ptolemaic Egypt. Cyrene was second only to Alexandria as a Jewish
center in Egypt.
Jason is, of course, a Greek name, but in the Greek period it was not
unusual for Jews to adopt Greek names that were close to the Hebrew
originals. Many a Joshua called himself Jason.
The original history of Jason of Cyrene is, unfortunately, lost. It
was written in Greek and so was the abridgement we call 2 Maccabees.
The abridger begins by quoting a pair of letters that have nothing
754
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
MTLt ^5£LEUCJ0'
«EMPIRE"„
MeDITEKRANE A n
Sea.
Palestine Under the Maccabees
2 MACCABEES
755
really to do with the subject matter of the book, but urge the Jews in
Egypt to keep the new feast of Hanukkah, even though it was not part
of the Mosaic commandments. Since the feast commemorated events
in Judea that may have seemed beyond the horizon to the Egyptian
Jews, there might well have been a lack of motivation among the latter
to celebrate. There would, instead, have been the usual religious con-
servatism against all innovations.
The two letters are dated:
2 Maccabees 1:7. What time as Demetrius reigned, in the hundred
threescore and ninth year [143 B.C.], we the Jews wrote unto you
in the extremity of trouble that came upon us in those years . . .
2 Maccabees 1:10. In the hundred fourscore and eighth year
[124 b.c], the people that were at Jerusalem . . . sent greeting and
health unto Aristobulus, king Ptolemeus' master . . .
The earlier letter was sent in the time of Demetrius II, just about
the time that Jonathan was captured and killed by the usurper Tryphon
(see page 85), one of the dark moments of the Jewish rebellion.
By the time the second letter was sent, Demetrius had just died
and his young son, Antiochus VIII, was on a powerless throne. John
Hyrcanus I was ruling in peace in Jerusalem.
On the Egyptian throne was Ptolemy VII "Physcon" (see page 713).
He had reigned first with his older brother, Ptolemy VI, and then
alone, from 170 b.c. to 116 b.c, the longest reign in Ptolemaic history.
Aristobulus is apparently a learned Jew who was one of the scholars
patronized by Ptolemy and therefore considered Ptolemy's teacher (or
"master").
Naphthar
The writer of 2 Maccabees, in quoting the letter to Aristobulus,
stresses the continuity of Jewish ritual. The letter seeks to prove that
it was unbroken by the Exile into Babylonia. (The letter speaks of
Babylonia, erroneously, as Persia.)
Thus, the letter states that at the time of the Exile, some of the
priests preserved the fire of the altar in the hollow of a dry cistern. A
756
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
century and a half later, when Nehemiah was in Jerusalem, the Ere was
recovered:
2 Maccabees 1:20. . . . Neemias [Nehemiah] . . . did send of
the posterity of those priests that had hid . . . the fire: but . . .
they found no fire, but thick water . . .
The "thick water" (that is, a viscous fluid) was brought up, and
used to help light a strong fire.
2 Maccabees 1 : 36. And Neemias called this thing Nephthar, which
is as much as to say, a cleansing . . .
Naphthar or, as we would say, naphtha is a word that can be traced
back to the Persian "naft" and further back still to the Babylonian
"naptu." It is not surprising that Nehemiah, who had lived at the
Persian court, should use a Persian word for a substance that was un-
familiar to the Jews.
Naphtha is a viscous organic fluid which is inflammable. It is an
oil that issues forth from the rocks and its modem name is "petroleum"
(from Latin words meaning "rock oil"). The Middle East is one of the
great reservoirs of petroleum and even in ancient times there were
places where petroleum seeped out to the surface. Such seepages,
if set on fire, could give rise to "eternal flames," which would be of
important religious significance to many of the ancients. This was
particularly true in Persia, where such seepages were known and where
fire was, in any case, worshipped as a manifestation of Ahura Mazda,
lord of light (see page I-409).
Thus, when Nehemiah reported the find to the Persian monarch:
2 Maccabees 1:34. . . . the king, inclosing the place, made it
holy . . .
It is doubtful that any historical value at all can be placed on this
legend, but it does seem that the writer must be at least aware of the
uses of natural naphtha seepage. And the passage is interesting as an
early reference to petroleum.
Judaism
Having completed his letter-quoting, the writer then goes on to
introduce his history concerning:
2 MACCABEES 757
2 Maccabees 2:21. . . . those that behaved themselves manfully
to their honour for Judaism . . .
This is the first known use of the term Judaism.
Onias
The historical section of 2 Maccabees begins with the picture of
peace and quiet before the coming of Antiochus IV:
2 Maccabees 3:1. . . . the holy city [Jerusalem] was inhabited
with all peace, and the laws were kept very well, because of the
godliness of Onias the high priest . . .
Here is a reference to the last of the legitimate high priests, stretching
in an unbroken line from Zadok, who served under Solomon when
the First Temple was built (see page I-322). The continuity had been
maintained even during the Babylonian Exile, and Zadokite high
priests were in charge when the Second Temple was constructed.
In the Book of Nehemiah, the line of high priests is carried down
to Jaddua:
Nehemiah 12:11. And Joiada begat Jonathan, and Jonathan begat
Jaddua,
From passages in the histories of Josephus, the first-century Jewish
historian, it is thought that this Jaddua was high priest at the time
that Alexander the Great passed through Judea. It was Jaddua who,
according to legend, confronted Alexander in his high-priestly regalia
(see page 701).
Jaddua was high priest from about 350 b.c. to 300 B.C. Following
him, according to the information given by Josephus, was Onias I,
who held the office from 300 b.c. to 280 b.c. It was in his time that
Ptolemy I took Jerusalem and began the century-long domination of
Ptolemaic Egypt over Judea. He is also the Onias who, according to
the dubious story in 1 Maccabees, first formed an alliance with Sparta
(see page 745) .
In the letter quoted there as having been written to Sparta in
Maccabean times, it is stated:
1 Maccabees 12:7. There were letters sent in times past unto Onias
the high priest from Darius, who reigned then among you . . .
758
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
(Of course, no Darius ever reigned over the Spartans. Elsewhere in
the chapter the Spartan king is referred to as Areus. He reigned from
309 to 265 B.C.)
Onias I was succeeded by a son, Simon I, by another son, Eleazar,
and about 276 B.C. by a brother, Manasseh. Then Onias II, a son of
Simon I, became high priest in 250 b.c. It may have been under
Onias II that the Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, was
produced in Egypt.
Onias II was eventually succeeded by his son, Simon II, who was
mentioned by Jesus, son of Sirach (see page I-516), with great ap-
proval:
Ecclesiasticus 50:1. Simon the high priest, the son of Onias, who
in his life repaired the house again, and in his days fortified the
temple . . .
Simon II, also called "Simon the Just," was high priest from about
219 b.c. to 196 b.c. It was in his time that Antiochus III the Great
wrested Judea from the Ptolemies. The Jews did not participate in this
war and Antiochus III left them in peace.
In 196 b.c. the son of Simon the Just, Onias III, succeeded to the
office of high priest. He too is depicted as pious and holy, wedded to
the conservative doctrines of Judaism. It is Onias III who is referred to
in 2 Maccabees 3:1.
Seleucus
The felicity of the period is perhaps exaggerated by the historian in
order to make a dramatic contrast with the horrors to follow. Even the
Seleucid monarch himself is depicted as patronizing the Jewish rites:
2 Maccabees 3:3. . . . Seleucus king of Asia of his own revenues
bare all the costs belonging to the service of the sacrifices.
The Seleucus here referred to is Seleucus IV Philopater, elder son
of Antiochus the Great, who succeeded to the throne in 187 b.c. His
generosity to the Temple seems most strange, for the Seleucid mon-
archy was virtually bankrupt at this time. The defeat of Antiochus III
by Rome, just a few years before, had placed the load of a back-break-
ing indemnity upon the land. It could be paid only by rifling the
various temples of their hoarded wealth. Antiochus III had died in a
2 MACCABEES 7S9
popular uprising when he attempted such rifling and his son was in no
position to pay to a Temple when circumstances were much more
likely to force him to steal from one.
Indeed, the book goes on at once to point out that this was actually
the case.
Simon
As often happens, external trouble comes upon a land because in-
ternal trouble invites it:
2 Maccabees 3:4. .. . one Simon . . . , who was made governor
of the temple, fell out with the high priest about disorder in the city.
During post-Exilic days, the high priest had been both the religious
and the civil head of Judea, but this sound policy came to an end dur-
ing the time of Onias II. This was when Judea was still under the
control of Egypt and the strong king, Ptolemy III Euergetes, was on
the throne.
For some reason Onias II refused to pay the annual tax laid upon
the Temple. This was unwise and would have led to serious troubles
had not Onias' nephew, Joseph, taken action. He persuaded Onias II
to let him go to Egypt and there he managed to placate Ptolemy III.
He also managed to win for himself the post of "governor of the
temple." In other words, the prerogatives of Onias II were henceforth
restricted to matters of religion and his civil powers were given to
Joseph.
Now there were two lines of Zadokite officials in Jerusalem— a
religious line and a civil line. Onias III was of the religious line and
Simon (the son of Joseph) was of the civil line.
Naturally, when powers formally confined to one official come to
be shared by two there are constant quarrels over jurisdiction. The
fact that Onias III and Simon were second cousins did not make the
quarrels less bitter.
In such quarrels, one or the other of the disputants is bound to
appeal to some outside power. This Simon did. He reported to the
Seleucid governor of the district that the Temple was filled with wealth
that was being withheld from the king.
Seleucus IV, who needed money badly, sent an official named
Heliodorus to investigate the matter.
760
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The attempt of Heliodorus to investigate the Temple is described
in the book as having been thwarted by supernatural means. After-
ward, Heliodorus grew friendly with Onias. It is possible, however, if
history is viewed cynically, to suppose that Onias bribed Heliodorus
to "lay off" and that Heliodorus conceived the idea of gaining power
for himself with, perhaps, the financial help of the Temple at Jerusa-
lem.
In 175 b.c, Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus IV. He then made
some sort of attempt to make himself king but Seleucus' younger
brother, Antiochus, was returning from Roman captivity (see page
7 10) and he seized the throne as Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Jason the brother of Onias
If Antiochus IV knew of (or suspected) any intrigue between the
high priest and his brother's assassin, he would naturally have harsh
feelings toward the former. As for Onias III, fearing reprisal, he would
be bound to cast about for help to Egypt, a land with which Antiochus
IV intended to go to war.
Antiochus IV could scarcely be expected to march against Egypt,
leaving an enemy such as Onias III in his rear to rouse, perhaps, a
Jewish rebellion that would negate any Egyptian victories he might
gain.
Again, rivalries within the family of the high priest paved the way
for infringing upon Jewish prerogatives. Onias had a brother, Joshua,
who coveted the office of high priest. Joshua was a Hellenizer rather
than a conservative and showed it by adopting the Greek name of
Jason.
2 Maccabees 4:7. . . . when Antiochus . . . took the kingdom,
Jason the brother of Onias laboured underhand to be high priest,
2 Maccabees 4:8. Promising unto the king . . . three hundred
and threescore talents of silver, and of another revenue eighty talents:
2 Maccabees 4:9. Beside this, he promised to assign an hundred
and fifty more, if he might have licence to set him up a place for
exercise . . .
The desire to be high priest was not only a matter of honor and
prestige. Whoever was high priest controlled the revenues of the Tern-
2 MACCABEES
761
pie, which were considerable, and was therefore (if he were not scrupu-
lously honest) on the highroad to wealth. Jason obviously planned to
enrich himself through graft, particularly since he maneuvered to main-
tain what we would today call the "gymnasium concession" for himself
as well. The aristocratic youth of Judea, eager to participate in the
Greek way of life, would pay for the privilege and a good part of the
money would stick to Jason's hands.
For all this, Jason was willing to share some of the loot with Anti-
ochus IV for he needed the king's word to be made high priest. Since
Antiochus IV needed money badly for his projected Egyptian war,
the arrangement with Jason was made.
Now Antiochus could march off into Egypt.
Menelavs
When it came time to remit an installment of the promised pay-
ment to Antiochus IV, Jason sent an emissary:
2 Maccabees 4:23. . . . Jason sent Menelaus, the aforesaid Si-
mon's brother, to bear the money unto the king , . .
It was a case of brothers all around. A few years before, Simon
had coveted the post held by Onais III and had therefore intrigued with
Seleucus IV. Now the brother of Simon coveted the post held by
Jason, the brother of Onias III, and intrigued with Antiochus IV, the
brother of Seleucus IV.
Simon's brother was named Onias but he took the Greek name
of Menelaus, and once Jason was so incautious as to give him entry to
Antiochus, Menelaus seized the chance at once. He offered Antiochus
three hundred talents more than Jason had agreed to pay. This was
fine as far as Antiochus IV was concerned. He was willing to sell
the high priesthood to the highest bidder at any time. Jason was forced
to flee across the Jordan and Menelaus became high priest.
Daphne
Meanwhile, Onias III, who was looked upon by all conservative
Jews as the only legitimate high priest, was living in semi-imprison-
762
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
ment in Antioch. When the news of Menelaus' open-faced thievery
reached Onias (Menelaus was reported to have used certain gold
vessels of the Temple as bribes to Seleucid officials), the old high
priest denounced the usurper:
2 Maccabees 4:33. . . . Onias . . . reproved him [Menelaus], and
withdrew himself into a sanctuary at Daphne, that lieth by Antiochia.
Daphne was a suburb of Antioch, about five miles away, and un-
doubtedly Onias made use of a Creek temple, from which it would
have been sacrilege, in Greek eyes, to remove him.
Menelaus, however, persuaded the Seleucid commander in the dis-
trict (with bribes perhaps) to induce Onias to leave the sanctuary, by
giving oath for his safety. Once Onias was out of the Temple, he was
promptly murdered. This was in 170 b.c.
The murder at once became a cause oilebre. The Jews were on
the verge of rebellion at this slaughter of the last legitimate high priest
Even many Creeks were horrified at the sacrilege committed against
their own temple. Antiochus IV, returning from the suppression of a
rebellion in part of his dominion in Asia Minor, was forced to quiet
the populace by executing the officer who had committed the deed.
Scholars are quite certain that it is Onias III to whom the writer
of the Book of Daniel refers in his passage about a Messiah, or
"anointed one" (see page I-613); that is, a high priest:
Daniel 9:26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah
be cut off . . .
After that, Antiochus IV made a second foray into Egypt, achieved
complete success but was driven out by a Roman ultimatum (see
page 714). He then turned against Jerusalem, which had been the
scene of disorders between the factions of Jason and Menelaus, took
the city, pillaged the Temple, and killed many Jews who resisted, all
with the help and the official backing of Menelaus.
Eleazar
The Temple was then profaned and rededicated to Zeus, and Ju-
daism was outlawed. The writer of 2 Maccabees gives details lacking in
2 MACCABEES 763
i Maccabees concerning the martyrdom of conservative Jews who would
not give up their religious customs even under torture.
Since such stories are not told in the more reliable 1 Maccabees, one
might wonder if they are not merely atrocity stories made up after the
fact. However, the history of Nazi Germany has proved to all of us that
atrocity stories are sometimes simple truth, and understatements at
that.
In any case, the stories, whether strictly true or propaganda inven-
tions, are told in grisly detail as edifying examples of loyalty to the
death. These are the first martyr-tales in the Judeo-Christian tradition
and formed a precedent for the many later such tales that formed so
large a part of early Christian literature.
An example is that of Eleazar:
2 Maccabees 6:18. Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, an aged
man, . . . was constrained to . . . eat swine's flesh.
2 Maccabees 6:19. But he, choosing rather to die gloriously, . . .
spit it forth, and came of his own accord to the torment.
2 Maccabees 6:20. As it behoved them to come, that are resolute
to stand out against such things . . .
Eleazar is described as dying on the rack, even though every attempt
was made to persuade him to go through a nominal acquiescence to
paganism. An even more gruesome tale is told of the torture and
death of a woman and her seven sons.
Alcimus
Thereafter the tale passes on to the rebellion of the Jews under the
leadership of Judas Maccabeus. The same story told in 1 Maccabees
is repeated, though, it is generally thought, less reliably.
The deaths of the villains of the piece are given in considerable
(but implausible) detail. Thus, Antiochus IV is described as dying
in lingering torments from a loathsome disease, and as attempting to
make up for his evils in order to recover— even vowing to become a
Jew.
Menelaus was executed by the Seleucids themselves in the reign of
Antiochus V Eupator. He was left to rot unburied (a supremely
terrible fate in the eyes of the Jews of the time).
764
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
When Demetrius I Soter became king he was approached by still
another representative of the Zadokite line:
2 Maccabees 14:3. Now one Alcimus, who had been high priest,
and had defiled himself wilfully in the times of their minting with
the Gentiles, . . .
2 Maccabees 14:4. Came to king Demetrius in the hundred and
one and fiftieth year [161 B.C.] . . .
Alcimus was accepted as high priest by Demetrius and led invasions
into Judea, in the course of one of which there took place the battle in
which Judas Maccabeus was killed.
For a while Alcimus ruled over Jerusalem as a Seleucid puppet. His
end is not told in 2 Maccabees, which ends with Judas' last victory
over Nicanor. It is, however, described in 1 Maccabees:
1 Maccabees 9:54. . . . in the hundred fifty and third year
[159 B.C.], . . . Alcimus commanded that the wall of the inner
court of the sanctuary should be pulled down . . .
1 Maccabees 9:55. And as he began to pull down, even at that
time was Alcimus plagued . . .
1 Maccabees 9:56. So Alcimus died at that time with great torment.
That was the end of the Zadokites, if Alcimus was indeed one. Seven
years later, Jonathan, brother of Judas Maccabeus, was made high
priest (see page 742) and a new line, non-Zadokite in origin, was
initiated.
3 Maccabees
There are other books dealing with the general period of the Mac-
cabees that have never been considered canonical by any important
group and are therefore not included even in the Apocrypha.
The Book of 3 Maccabees, the best known of these, is a work of
fiction written probably by an Alexandrian Jew toward the end of the
first century b.c, or even later, when Roman rule was becoming in-
creasingly oppressive.
Just as the Book of Esther was written in Seleucid times to en-
courage Jews of that period with tales of miraculous rescues under a
2 MACCABEES
765
previous oppressor, so 3 Maccabees was written in Roman times for
the same purpose through use of the same literary device.
The time of the incidents told in the book actually falls a genera-
tion before the Maccabean revolt and the Maccabees themselves play
no part in it.
The book opens in the last decades of Ptolemaic control of Judea.
Ptolemy IV Philometer of Egypt and Antiochus III of the Seleucid
Empire are at war. Eventually Antiochus is to be the victor, but the
book opens at a stage where Ptolemy has just won a victory in southern
Judea (at Raphia, near Gaza), in 217 b.c.
Flushed with victory, Ptolemy enters Jerusalem and conceives a
desire to enter the sanctuary of the Temple, where only the high priest
might enter. (In later years, the Roman general, Pompey, entered the
sanctuary and that incident might have helped inspire this story.)
Ptolemy IV, unlike Pompey, is thwarted by the opposition of the high
priest and the people and, according to the story, by divine interven-
tion as well.
Ptolemy IV decides to seek revenge by having all the Jews of
Alexandria killed. He plans to shut them into the hippodrome and have
them trampled by five hundred elephants who are first maddened with
wine. On three successive days, this plan is prevented by divine inter-
vention and, eventually, angels turn the elephants back on the Egyp-
tian army.
At once Ptolemy IV turns from persecuting the Jews to befriending
them (as Ahasuerus does in the Book of Esther) and all ends in happi-
ness and triumph.
As for 4 Maccabees, written about the same time as 3 Maccabees,
that is essentially a sermon on the value of martyrdom. The martyr
atones for the sins of others and achieves eternal blessedness in heaven.
The author uses as his examples the cases of Eleazar and of the woman
and her seven sons, which were described in 2 Maccabees.
Finally, 5 Maccabees is a sober history of the Maccabean period from
beginning to end. However, its first part is based on 1 and 2 Maccabees
and its remainder is based on Josephus, so it adds nothing to what is
known from other sources.
5. MATTHEW
THE NEW TESTAMENT • THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW "
MATTHEW * JESUS CHRIST * DAVID * RACHAB * THE WIFE OF URIAS "
ZOROBABEL ■ THE HOLY GHOST • MARY • HEROD • WISE MEN FROM THE
EAST ' KINC OF THE JEWS ' THE STAR * BETHLEHEM " THE CHILDREN . . .
IN BETHLEHEM * EGYPT * ARCHELAUS " NAZARETH • JOHN THE BAPTIST *
ELIJAH • PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES ' THE SON • SATAN • HERODIAS •
ZABULON AND NEPHTHALIM * THE CARPENTER'S SON • JESUS' BRETHREN •
CAPERNAUM " SIMON ' JAMES • DECAPOLIS ' THE LAW ' PUBLICANS
• PATERNOSTER • MAMMON * THE DOGS ' THE CENTURION * THE SON OF MAN
■ GERGESENES * THE TWELVE APOSTLES * SIMON THE CANAANTTE * JUDAS
ISCARIOT ■ SAMARITANS • THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN ■ THE PHARISEES • THE
SABBATH • JESUS' MOTHER AND BRETHREN • PARABLES " THE DAUGHTER OF
HERODIAS ' BETHSATDA • CAES AREA PHILIPPI • PETER • MOSES AND EL IAS *
JAMES AND JOHN • THE MOUNT OF OLIVES * HOSANNA * THE TEMPLE • THE
SON OF DAVID • THE HERODIANS " ZACHARIAS SON OF BARACHIAS * THE
ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION • TALENT • CAUPHAS 1 JUDAS ISCARIOT *
GETHSEMANE * THE JUDAS KISS " CHRIST ' PETER * PONTIUS PILATE * THE
POTTER'S FIELD " BARABBAS * PILATE AND PILATE'S WIFE • CRUCIFIXION •
CYRENE • GOLGOTHA " VINEGAR AND GALL • ELI, ELI * JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA
• THE FDIST DAY OF THE WEEK ' MARY MAGDALENE
The New Testament
The books considered part of the Biblical canon by the Jews are
thirty-nine in number, and all have been considered in the first volume
of this book.
The central theme of the Bible, in Jewish eyes, is the contract or
covenant entered into between God and the Jewish people. The first
mention of this covenant is God's promise to give Canaan to the
descendants of Abraham.
Genesis 15:18. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with
Abram [Abraham], saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land,
from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates . . .
MATTHEW
767
MEDITERRANEAN / e ~7*Mf. {./^fy.
- . isO st *~ ■ U TURAEA
f "V^ .'Sisdwto I-. ;
laAUWN.Ti's ^ ?g
T / .0 A LI LEE. Wy-- \
r ■
D *j? AURAMTIS
- ^V*r ■!' DECAPOUS
— SAMARIA'" AVjht^S.'p 5 '/''/ i
..^i \« ... ■ ~l\ V 9 bAHMttaS.«f : ; : Q
/ .-I. V. ... ■ »J^!k V- gSAlMlWS. a ,'
4 Asa/on} O'Htorfiumt^r
.Mania.' u £A x....
" A,MM0N
.Marts*.' ~:' u i_* v.
\ , ( ^ r
. Un to .
1 Madam' .
JhuMm
NABATAEANS
Sam
-'.^ a^^I^^? 7 ,
Dr'tM
/7 .
The Dominions of Herod the Great
76H
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
This promise was repeated several times in Genesis, and clearly
there had to be some return made by Abraham and his descendants.
This return was made through the Israelites' acceptance of the Law
as pronounced at Mount Sinai, according to the Biblical tradition, and
incorporated into the first five books of the Bible. The covenant was
therefore specifically mentioned again when the Israelites were at
Mount Sinai.
Exodus 34:27. And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these
words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant
with thee and with Israel.
After the Israelites entered and occupied the "Promised Land," the
covenant continued to hold. They were to remain God's special charge,
a people "peculiar" to Him, and their stay in the land was to continue
in peace and security, as long as they adhered to the Law and, there-
fore, to their end of the bargain. When Israel fell away from the Law,
the people received the punishment due those who broke a solemn
contract. Then, when the people repented and returned to the Law,
they were always forgiven. This cycle of apostasy and punishment,
repentance and forgiveness, is the constant theme of the Book of Judges
(see page I-232).
Through the Biblical account of the centuries that follow the period
of the judges, the covenant is broken on numerous occasions by the
Israelites. Indeed, it would seem to have been adhered to by only a
small, and often persecuted, minority until after the return from Bab-
ylonian Exile.
Thus, some of the pre-Exilic prophets conceived of God as growing
weary of a covenant that seemed never to be kept. The prophet Hosea
names his third son Lo-ammi ("not my people"), stating this to have
been at God's direction:
Hosea 1:9. Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are
not my people, and I will not be your God.
Again, in the eschatological visions recorded in the Book of Jeremiah,
the prophet looks forward to a triumphant day when God would
make a new start, so to speak, with his people; wipe the slate clean and
begin again:
Jeremiah 31:31. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house
of Judah . . .
MATTHEW
769
The followers of Jesus came early to believe that in the teachings of
Jesus was to be found exactly this new covenant; a new contract be-
tween God and man, replacing the old one with Israel that dated
back to Sinai and even beyond that to Abraham.
Thus, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (traditionally written by the
Apostle Paul), this is specifically stated.
Hebrews 8:6. . . .he [Jesus] is the mediator of a better covenant,
which was established upon better promises.
The writer then goes on to quote from Jeremiah to show that the
coming of such a new and better covenant was predicted.
The word "testament" is used in the Bible as a synonym for "cove-
nant." Thus Jesus himself, shortly before his trial and conviction, is
quoted as referring to a new covenant to which his death is to bear
witness:
Matthew 26:27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave
it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Matthew 26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament . . .
(The adjective "new" was not present in the earliest versions but
seems to have been added later to emphasize the fresh turn taken in
the scheme of things with the advent of Jesus. The Revised Standard
Version keeps the older word for testament and omits the adjective,
making the passage read, "For this is my blood of the covenant," a
reading with which the Jerusalem Bible agrees.)
The Jewish Scriptures, dealing with the older covenant, can there-
fore be referred to as the "Old Testament." The books written about
Jesus and his earliest disciples are called the "New Testament."
The Christian versions of the Bible include both Old and New
Testaments. Christians consider them equally inspired, but with the
New Testament representing the fulfillment and climactic completion
of the Old. The Jews, on the other hand, adhere to the original cove-
nant only and to them the Old Testament is the whole of the Bible.
The Gospel According to St. Matthew
The New Testament opens with four different biographies of Jesus
by, according to tradition, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in that
770
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
order. Each of these biographies is called a "gospel" and the second
is specifically so named:
Mark 1:1. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God . . .
The word gospel is from the Anglo-Saxon "god spell" meaning "good
news." In other words, the term refers not so much to the biography
of Jesus as to the higher meaning of his life. The story of Jesus is
the story of the coming of the Messiah, the initiation of the new
covenant between God and man, the arrival of salvation— and this
certainly must be considered good news.
The Greek form of the word is "evangelos" ("bringing good news")
and the four biographers of Jesus are therefore called "the four evan-
gelists."
Each of the evangelists is given the title "saint." This is from the
Latin "sanctus" meaning "holy." In the Old Testament the term is used
in the Book of Daniel to represent those Jews who are faithful to the
Law despite the pressure of Seleucid persecution.
Daniel 7:21. . . . the same horn [Antiochus IV] made war with
the saints, and prevailed against them . . .
Among Christians, it means, in part, those pious and godly people
who keep themselves from all corruption, are devoted to the teachings
of Jesus, and are the object of God's particular love.
The first three gospels, those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are very
similar (although they are by no means identical). They are therefore
called the "synoptic gospels." The word "synoptic" is from Greek
terms meaning "with one eye." The three gospels can be placed side
by side, in other words, and viewed simultaneously with a single glance
without the contents going badly out of focus.
Matthew is the first of the gospels in the New Testament because,
according to early tradition, it was the first to be written. This, how-
ever, is now doubted by nearly everyone. The honor of primacy is
generally granted to Mark, which is the second gospel in the Bible as
it stands.
Matthew incorporates almost all of Mark and, in addition, includes
material which is thought by some to belong to a still earlier collection
of sayings of Jesus. This collection is now lost and its existence can be
MATTHEW
771
deduced only indirectly. It is usually termed Q for Quelle, the German
word for "source."
There is some possibility that Matthew was written originally in
Aramaic. At least a Christian writer of the second century, Papias, is
quoted by a somewhat later writer as having referred to Matthew com-
posing his work "in the Hebrew language." One would suppose
Aramaic to have been meant by that since that was the common
speech in the Judea of New Testament times (see page I-446). There
is no certainty that Papias in referring to Matthew's gospel is refer-
ring to the one we now have and call by Matthew's name.
In any case, if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, it was
quickly translated into Greek and the Aramaic original (if it existed at
all) was lost. The Jerusalem Bible speculates that the Aramaic version
of Matthew was indeed the oldest of the gospels (could it have been
Q?) and was the source used by Mark. Matthew was then translated
into Greek (our present version) and Mark was used as an additional
source.
Certainly Matthew is the only book of the New Testament that
can possibly have been first written in Aramaic. It seems quite certain
that all the other books of the New Testament were first written in
Greek.
Little can be said as to the time when Matthew was written. From
the references to the destruction of the Temple, which are found in
various places in the gospel, it is often suggested that the book reached
its present form shortly after the fateful year of aj>. 70.
Matthew
But who was Matthew? The name is associated with the first gospel
by a tradition which seems to trace back to the reference by Papias,
mentioned earlier, to a gospel written by Matthew.
Matthew is the English form of the Greek "Mattathias" or, in He-
brew Mattathiah ("the gift of God"). It is a name that grew common
by New Testament times, partly because of the great pride of the Jews
in the achievements of the Maccabean period. Mattathias is, of course,
the name of the rather of Judas Maccabeus and the heroic initiator
of the revolt against the Seleucids (see page 716) .
772
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew is also the name of one of the disciples chosen by Jesus,
according to this gospel.
Matthew 9:9. And . . . Jesus . . . saw a man, named Matthew,
sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me.
And he [Matthew] arose, and followed him.
Christian tradition points to this particular Matthew as the author of
this gospel, but there is no evidence beyond that tradition.
It is annoying that the gospels do not carry a clear statement of
authorship in the modern fashion, but there are several possible reasons
for anonymity. Holy books, in the Jewish tradition, rarely carried any
notice of real authorship but were assigned to some ancient worthy.
Indeed, there might be considered the very real force of the feeling
that a truly holy book was inspired by God and that the worldly
author acted only as a mouthpiece and deserved no credit.
On a more mundane level, the time of the writing of the gospels
was a hard one for Christians. Jewish hostility was pronounced and so
was Roman hostility. The sharp persecution by the Emperor, Nero,
was not long in the past and, in the aftermath of the Jewish rebellion,
the Jews that survived were resentful, indeed, of Christian failure to
join the rebellion. It might well be that a gospel writer preferred to
remain anonymous out of considerations of personal safety.
Jesus Christ
The notion of the coming of the Messiah must have had hard
sledding in the Maccabean era. Judas Maccabeus had about him a
heroism that might easily have been equated with the vision of the
Messiah as a conquering king. And when he died, that vision might
easily have been transferred to the first few of his successors, since
under them the Jewish state briefly returned to a period of glory such
as it had not known since the days of Solomon.
Certainly, if a comparatively feeble individual such as Zcrubbabel
could be greeted as the Messiah by Haggai (see page 1-663), one of the
heroic Maccabees might have been.
But it had been stressed over and over again in the prophetic books
of the Old Testament that the Messiah would have to be an offspring
of the line of David. Zerubbabel had indeed been such an offspring,
MATTHEW 773
but the Maccabees had not, and the Maccabees therefore could not in-
clude the Messiah among their number, in the view of pious Jews, no
matter what other arguments there might be in favor of it.
The Messiah still belonged to the future, therefore, in the time of
the Maccabees. While the Maccabean kingdom was prosperous, Mes-
sianic longings could be muted, but when the kingdom fell and Judea
came under the domination of Rome, those longings sharpened again.
Matthew begins his good news, or gospel, with the announcement of
the coming of the Messiah:
Matthew 1:1. The book of . . . Jesus Christ . . .
The Hebrew word Messiah means "the anointed one." The Greek
word "khrisma" is the oil used for anointing (our word "cream" traces
back to "khrisma"). The Messiah, to whom such oil is applied would
be "Khristos" in Greek, "Christus" in Latin, "Christ" in English. Since
Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, the first verse
of Matthew is equivalent to "The book of . . . Joshua the Messiah . . ."
David
To someone as steeped in the Jewish tradition as Matthew, it is
obvious that the first task to be undertaken if the story of the Messiah
is to be told is to demonstrate that he is the Messiah. And to do that,
it must be shown, first of all, that the Messiah is a member of the
line of David. Matthew therefore begins with a genealogy.
Matthew 1:1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son
of David, the son of Abraham.
The genealogy begins with Abraham, who is by no means the first
man, but is the one with whom God first made a covenant relating
to the Jewish people who were to descend from him. From the Jewish
interpretation of history as the tale of a covenant between man and
God, a covenant to be fulfilled by the Messiah, one would naturally
begin with Abraham, and Matthew with his deep-ingrained Jewishness
does just this.
Matthew follows a highly artificial scheme in presenting this geneal-
ogy:
774
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew 1:17. . . . all the generations from Abraham to David
are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away
into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away
into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
Why Matthew should feel it necessary to establish such symmetry is
not certain. Perhaps he felt that by pointing out the great events that
took place after two sets of fourteen generations, he made it reasonable
that one ought to expect the Messiah after a third set of fourteen
generations.
Or it may be that there is numerological significance now lost or that
Matthew was trying to set up some acrostic device that can no longer
be followed. In any case, in order to obtain his sets of fourteen,
Matthew was forced to distort the genealogy, and this can scarcely be
considered as adding to the plausibility of whatever argument he
might have had in mind.
Rachab
The first set of fourteen are: (1) Abraham, (2) Isaac, (3) Jacob, (4)
Judas [Judah], (5) Phares [Perez], (6) Esrom [Hezron], (7) Aram
[Ram], (8) Aminadab, (9) Naasson [Nahshon], (10) Salmon, (11)
Booz [Boaz], (12) Obed, (13) Jesse, and (14) David.
The names down to Perez are given in Genesis and the remainder
are given in Ruth.
Included in the list are three women, and, oddly enough, each of the
three is, in one way or another, tainted. The first appears as follows:
Matthew 1:3. And Judas [Judah] begat Phares [Perez] and Zara
[Zerah] of Thamar [Tamar] . . .
Zerah is mentioned because he was a twin brother of Perez and
both were born at the same time. However, it was through Perez that
David and, therefore, Jesus traced their descent. Tamar begot them of
Judah by a kind of deceit that was justified according to patriarchal
custom, but in doing so, she played the part of a harlot:
Genesis 38:15. When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an
harlot; because she had covered her face.
MATTHEW 775
The other two women are mentioned shortly after:
Matthew 1:5. And Salmon begat Booz [Boaz] of Rachab [Rahab];
and Booz [Boaz] begat Obed of Ruth . . .
Ruth was, of course, a Moabite woman, something which would
make a strict Jew of New Testament times uneasy, even if she were an
ancestress of David.
The real curiosity, however, is Rahab. The tale of both Tamar and
Ruth are given in some detail in the Old Testament, but nothing at all
is mentioned, at least in the canonical books, of any marriage between
Salmon and Rahab.
Salmon is mentioned at the end of the Book of Ruth as part of the
line of descent going from Perez to David, a passage which Matthew
uses as reference. In Ruth, however, no wife is mentioned for Salmon.
In the Book of 1 Chronicles, a person with a name similar to
Salmon is mentioned in the genealogical tables:
1 Chronicles 2:51. Salma the father of Beth-lehem . . •
If this Salma is the same as the Salmon who is David's great-great-
grandfather, then the verse might signify that Salmon was the first of
the family to settle in Bethlehem. He may even have led the contingent
that took it from the Canaanities. But here too no wife is mentioned.
Who, then, is Rahab? There is a Rahab in the Old Testament, and
she is the woman who sheltered Joshua's spies when they entered
Jericho (see page I-211). This woman, however, did not merely play the
part of a harlot, as Tamar did. According to the Biblical statement,
she was a harlot.
Joshua 2:1. And Joshua . . . sent out . . . two men to spy . . .
And they went, and came into an harlots house, named Rahab,
and lodged there.
Can this be the Rahab referred to as Salmon's wife? Chronologically
it is possible. If David was bom in 1050 B.C. as the youngest son of
Jesse, who might therefore himself have been bom about 1100 B.C.,
it is quite possible that Jesse's grandfather might have been a warrior
between 1200 b.c. and 1170 B.C., when Joshua's conquest might have
taken place.
It is very likely that, in later Jewish tradition, Rahab was viewed as
776
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
a convert to Judaism after the fall of Jericho, and as meriting a reward
for her protection of the spies. If she were a convert, like Ruth, she
might very well merit a part of the ancestry of David, as Ruth did.
Of course, one wonders how much significance to give to the term
"harlot." She might, conceivably, have been the priestess of a Canaanite
goddess and as such may have engaged in fertility rites. This would
make her a harlot in the puritanical eyes of the Jewish Yahvists, but
surely not an ordinary harlot in the modern sense.
Matthew may have mentioned these because each was involved in a
colorful event taken note of in the Old Testament and probably popu-
lar among its Jewish readers and easily coated with legend. For this
reason he may have fallen prey to the temptation of pedantry, and dis-
played his knowledge of and interest in the Scriptures. On the other
hand, one might also reason that if Moabites and harlots are in the
line of Jesus' ancestry, it might signify that Jesus arose from all kinds
of people and therefore came to suffer for all kinds of people, the sinful
as well as the saint, the Gentile as well as the Jew.
The Wife of Urias
The list of fourteen names following David, down to the Baby-
lonian captivity, are: (1) Solomon, (2) Roboam [Rehoboam], (3)
Abia [Abijam], (4) Asa, (5) Josaphat [Jehoshaphat], (6) Joram,
(7) Ozias [Uzziah or Azariah], (8) Joatham [Jotham], (9) Achaz
[Ahaz], (10) Ezekias [Hezekiah], (11) Manasses [Manasseh], (12)
Amon, (13) Josias [Josiah], and (14) Jechonias [Jehoiachin].
A fourth woman is mentioned among this group:
Matthew 1:6. .. . David the king begat Solomon of her that
had been the wife of Unas [Uriah] . . .
This, of course, was Bathsheba, with whom David committed adultery
(see page I-310). Again a woman is mentioned who is the subject of
a dramatic story that involves a taint.
Matthew here lists fourteen kings who reigned after David, but in
achieving what is to him a magic number of fourteen, he omits several.
Thus, he states:
Matthew 1:8
and Joram begat Ozias [Uzziah]
MATTHEW
Bur Joram died in 844 B.C. and Uzziah began to reign in 780 B.C.,
leaving a sixty-four-year gap. This gap contained three kings of Judah,
as well as a usurping queen. Joram was succeeded by his son, Ahaziah,
who (after an interregnum in which Queen Athaliah reigned) was
succeeded by his son, Joash, who was succeeded by his son, Amaziah.
Uzziah then followed as Amaziah's son.
Ahaziah, the first of the omitted kings, was the son of Athaliah
and therefore the grandson of Ahab of Israel and of his wife, Jezebel
(see page I-362). One might almost suspect that Ahaziah and his im-
mediate descendants were omitted in order to avoid mentioning this
fact. Nevertheless, mentioned or not, it must follow from Matthew's
genealogy that the wicked queens Jezebel and Athaliah are to be in-
cluded among the ancestors of Jesus.
Still a fourth king is omitted from the line of succession:
Matthew 1:11. And Josias [Josiah] begat Jechonias [Jehoia-
chin] . . .
But Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim, who was, in turn, the father
of Jehoiachin.
Zorobabel
The final portion of Matthew's genealogy includes the descendants
of Jehoiachin after the Exile. The first two generations follow the
genealogy given in the Book of 1 Chronicles (see page I-405):
Matthew 1:12. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias
[Jehoiachin] begat [1] Salathiel [Shealtiel]; and Salathiel [Sheal-
tiel] begat [2] Zorobabel [Zerubbabel] . . .
After Zerubbabel, a list of names is given that is not found any-
where else in the Bible and which, if valid, we must assume to have
been taken from genealogical listings no longer available to us. They
are: (3) Abiud, (4) Eliakim, (5) Azor, (6) Sadoc, (7) Achim, (8)
Eliud, (9) Eleazar, (10) Matthan, (11) Jacob, and (12) Joseph.
The climax of the genealogy is reached:
Matthew 1:16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,
of whom was bom [13] Jesus, who is called Christ.
778
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The names in this third group are only thirteen in number, despite
Matthew's statement there are fourteen. Since it is quite certain that
Matthew could count we can only assume that somewhere in the early
copyings of this list, a name in the third group dropped out and has
been lost forever.
Attempts have been made to twist matters so that the magic number
fourteen is reached with the list before us. Some have counted
Jehoiachin in this list despite the fact that he is also counted in
the middle third. Others have attempted to count Mary as a separate
generation, since she is mentioned, but in that case one ought also to
count Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba.
No, the best that can be done is to state that, on the face of it, there
are fourteen generations from Abraham to David, eighteen from
David to the Exile, and thirteen from the Exile to Jesus. Fortunately,
though, Matthew's little game with numbers is not really of importance
and it isn't paid much mind, except as an interesting quirk in Matthew's
system of thought.
The Holy Ghost
In chapter 1:16, Matthew clearly avoids concluding the list of "be-
gats" by saying that Joseph begat Jesus. Rather he carefully identifies
Joseph as merely the husband of Mary "of whom was born Jesus."
This paves the way for Matthew's account of Jesus having been born
of a virgin:
Matthew 1:18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The word "ghost" is of Anglo-Saxon origin and means "spirit" or
"soul." Ghost, spirit, or soul— whatever it be called— represents some-
thing intangible which can be regarded as the essence of life, apart
from the material body. It can be the essence of life within a body
(a man's soul) or the essence of life in the absence of a body altogether
(a supernatural being).
Primitive peoples, generally, consider the universe to be populated
by myriads of spirits of all sorts; spirits capable of interfering with
human activity and, in some cases, capable of taking possession of a
human body in successful competition with its own proper spirit.
MATTHEW
779
The monotheistic Jews also had their popular tales of evil spirits
capable of taking possession of human bodies (as in the Book of
Tobit, see page 68 1 ) . Even at its most lofty, Judaism speaks of angels,
though viewing them always as messengers of God, who are incapable
of independent action. (The case of Satan and his rebellion against
Cod is a rather late development in Jewish thought, adopted only
after exposure to Persian dualism, see page I-409.)
Angels might be viewed as merely an extension of God; as represent-
ing the spirit of God manifesting itself on Earth in order to guide
human action.
It was felt that whenever a man took decisive action and exhibited
unusual traits of leadership, it was not so much the action of his own
feeble spirit but that of the Spirit of God which entered into him and
guided him. Thus:
Judges 3:10. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him [Othniel],
and he judged Israel, and went out to war . . .
Or:
Judges 6:34. But the Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon, and
he blew a trumpet . . .
Again, when Samson is described as performing a feat of more-
than-human strength:
Judges 14:6. And the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him,
and he rent him [a lion] as he would have rent a kid . . .
The Spirit of God might well be called the Holy Spirit, to avoid us-
ing the term "God" (something the Jews of the New Testament
period did avoid whenever possible— Matthew especially so). In the
King James Version it is called the Holy Ghost, which is synonymous.
However, the popular usage of "ghost," as signifying the spirits of the
dead, has so robbed the word of its dignity that "Holy Ghost" seems
odd to modem ears and Holy Spirit is preferable. The Revised Standard
Version uses Holy Spirit throughout.
To say, then, that Mary "was found with child of the Holy Ghost"
is to say that her pregnancy was the direct result of the working of the
divine influence within her and had nothing to do with the usual
manner of achieving pregnancy.
780
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Mary
Joseph, finding that his betrothed is pregnant, assumes she has
behaved improperly and feels that he cannot go through with the mar-
liage. He is warned against this by an angel:
Matthew 1:20. . . . the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in
a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the
Holy Ghost.
The name of Jesus' mother is, in Hebrew, Miriam (the name of
Moses' sister). In Aramaic, the name became Mariam, and in Roman
times it was easy to change this, by dropping the final letter, to Maria,
the feminine version of the good Roman name, Marius. Maria is still
the version of the name used in most European languages, though it
becomes Marion or Marie in French, and Mary in English.
Because of the emphasis here on the fact that her pregnancy was the
result of the action of the Holy Spirit and not of man, she is con-
sidered by Christians to have been a virgin even while pregnant and
is therefore commonly called the "Virgin Mary" or just "the Virgin."
Matthew's emphasis on the virgin birth would seem to negate his
earlier emphasis on the Davidic genealogy of Jesus. He shows that
Joseph, the husband of Mary, was a descendant of David, but then goes
on to show that this same Joseph was not the father of Jesus.
One might account for this by saying that Joseph was considered by
the people of his time to be the father of Jesus, so that in the course
of ordinary human affairs Jesus was of Davidic descent, thus fulfilling
that qualification for Messiah-hood. Then, the line of argument might
go, Jesus came to be recognized as the divine Son of God and this was
so much greater a qualification for Messiah-hood that Davidic descent
could be dismissed as an Earthly detail of only Earthly importance.
Another explanation is to suppose that while Matthew gives the
genealogy of Joseph, Mary herself is of Davidic descent also, and Jesus
is of that descent through his undoubted mother as well as through his
merely reputed father. The gospels do not say this directly but the
belief of the Davidic descent of Mary, as well as of Joseph, is firmly
ensconced in Christian tradition.
MATTHEW
781
And yet virgin birth is completely outside the Jewish tradition and
is not demanded by any of the Old Testament prophecies concerning
the Messiah. How, then, does Matthew come upon it? Being Matthew,
he is bound to support the virgin birth by citing an Old Testament
prophecy and he can find only one:
Matthew 1:22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Matthew 1:23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son . . .
This refers to a passage in Isaiah:
Isaiah 7:14. .. . Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son . . .
but it is not a very useful passage in this connection. Matthew's use of
the word "virgin" in his quotation is mistaken, though it has led early
translations of the Bible, including the King James Version, to make
use of the word "virgin" in the Isaiah passage as well. In fact, the
Hebrew word used by Isaiah means "young woman" and can apply
equally well to one who is not a virgin. And, in any case, whether
"virgin" or "young woman," the passage from Isaiah is unlikely to have
Messianic significance (see page I-532) and, but for these verses in
Matthew quoting it, would never be taken to have it.
But then, why the tale of the virgin birth, told with such urgency,
that a marginal Old Testament verse has to be searched for and found
by Matthew to account for it?
Perhaps we can indulge in a little speculation here. That which was
first known about Jesus must have been the tale of his ministry when
disciples flocked about him. Presumably he was an obscure Galilean,
until his preaching made him famous, and the details of his birth and
childhood were not known. Mark, the oldest of the gospels, has nothing
to say about his birth and childhood. Rather, Mark starts his tale of
Jesus with Jesus as an adult, beginning his ministry.
After Jesus' death, tales of his birth and childhood arose. It is quite
possible that many were legitimate reminiscences of those who had
known him as a youngster or of members of his family. On the other
hand, people being what they are, embroidery may have entered into
the legends concerning so remarkable a person as the Messiah and the
Son of God.
782
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The sort of detail which individuals of completely Jewish background
would expect of the Messiah would be a detailed genealogy that would
connect him with David. Such a genealogy is given by Matthew and
we have no reason to say that it is inaccurate (aside from the small
discrepancies we have pointed out that arise out of Matthew's eagerness
to attain the magic number of fourteen).
But the Jews were, in those days, surrounded by a vast world of
Gentiles who had traditions of their own. It was quite customary and
usual in Gentile legend (almost necessary, in fact) that any great
hero, any wonder-worker be the son of a god. A virgin could be impreg-
nated by a god in magical fashion— this would not be impossible in
the Greek tradition.
And, as it happened, there were Jews not only in Judca, where
Jewish thought was provincial and conservative, but in Alexandria and
other places where the Greek influence was strong. Greek versions of
the Bible used the Greek word for "virgin" in the Isaiah quotation, and
it is quite possible that Matthew followed the Greek version rather
than the Hebrew version in supporting the virgin birth, and that
he did not deliberately misquote.
In Jesus' time, the possibility of virgin birth may have taken on
added force. The Roman historian Livy, who died just a few years be-
fore the start of Jesus' ministry, had written a history of Rome that
proved enormously popular. In it he retells the tale of the founding of
Rome by the twin brothers Romulus and Remus. The interesting part
of that legend is that Romulus and Remus are described by him as
being of virgin birth. Their mother, Silvia, was a Vestal Virgin whose
children were fathered by Mars.
Greek-speaking Jews would surely place no credence in that, and
yet there might have been the impulse to feci that if a virgin birth
could be used to exalt the founders of the pagan city of Rome, how
much more could one rightly be used to exalt the founding of the
kingdom of God.
One might wonder, then, if Matthew might not have been faced
with two traditions concerning Jesus' birth, the strictly Jewish genealogy
of Davidic descent, and the Greek-Jewish story of the virgin birth. And,
although mutually exclusive, Matthew accepted both.
It is interesting that the tradition of the virgin birth is firmly and
clearly stated only in this first chapter of Matthew. There are verses in
Luke that can be made to support it, but not indisputably, and there
are no other references to it at all anywhere else in the New Testament.
MATTHEW
78?
Herod
The general period of Jesus' birth is given:
Matthew 2:1. . . . Jesus was bom ... in the days of Herod the
king . . .
The mention of Herod at once tells us that the day of the Maccabean
kingdom is over. Much has happened in the century that passed be-
tween the ending of 1 Maccabees and the opening of Matthew.
l Maccabees had ended with the assassination of Simon in 135 b.c.
His second and sole surviving son established himself as John Hyrcanus
I in 134 b.c, coming to a peaceful arrangement with Antiochus VII
Sidetes (see page 88), the last Seleucid monarch of any consequence.
John Hyrcanus extended the boundaries of Judea by conquest. He
established his rule over Samaria and Galilee to the north and he
brought Idumea, to his south, under complete domination. The
Samaritans retained their heretical religion, but orthodox Judaism was
established in Galilee and in Idumea.
The Idumeans accepted Judaism (in some cases at the point of the
sword) but the converts were not wholeheartedly accepted by the
Jewish nationalists. Despite their observance of the proper religion,
Idumeans were still viewed as Edomites, descendants of Esau, and
therefore the hereditary enemies of the Jewish descendants of Jacob.
John Hyrcanus I died in 104 b.c. and was succeeded by an elder son,
Aristobulus, who assumed the title of king, something the Seleucid
kingdom, now under Antiochus VIII Grypus ("hook-nosed"), was
powerless to prevent.
Aristobulus reigned only a year and, in 103 b.c, his younger brother,
Alexander Jannaeus, succeeded. In the course of a twenty-seven-ycar-
reign, Alexander raised Judea to the peak of its power. By the time he
died, in 79 b.c, Judea was very much in the position of Israel in the
time of Jeroboam II, six and a half centuries before (see page I- 369).
Under Jeroboam II, Israel seemed great and prosperous, but its
greatness was overshadowed by Assyria, a fact which became evident
immediately after Jeroboam's death. In the case of Alexander Jan-
naeus, Judea's greatness was darkened by the even greater shadow
of Rome.
784
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The substance of that shadow was making its way onto the Judean
stage after the death of Alexander Jannaeus, and its coming was
hastened by dynastic squabbles that set various Maccabees at each
other's throats.
Since the time of Jonathan, brother of Judas Maccabeus, the high
priesthood had remained in the family of the Maccabees and Alexander
Jannaeus was, for instance, at once king and high priest.
After Alexander's death, however, this combination of offices fell
apart. The high priesthood went to Alexander's elder son, John
Hyrcanus II, but the civil rule remained with Alexander's widow,
Alexandra.
Alexandra died in 67 b.c. and one might have expected John
Hyrcanus II to serve now as real king as well as high priest, but in
this he was disputed by his younger brother, Aristobulus II. In the
civil war that followed, John Hyrcanus II had the support of a very
able man, Antipater, who had been governor of Idumea under Alexan-
der Jannaeus. Antipater was an Idumean by birth, although Jewish by
religion.
The civil war could not have come at a worse time, for Roman armies
under General Gnaeus Pompeius (called Pompey in English) were
cleaning up the east. The last of the various small powers that, a
century before, had been brawling and squabbling on the international
stage were now being swallowed, one by one.
In 64 b.c, Pompey entered Antioch and put an end to the Seleucid
monarchy. A little over a century before, that monarchy had tyrannized
over Judea, but now, under its last kings, it was a feeble patch of
territory absorbed by Rome as the province of Syria.
Independent Judea survived the great Seleucid Empire as she had
once survived the great Assyrian Empire— but not for long. Both sides
in the Jewish civil war were appealing to Pompey for help, of course,
and the Roman general, as was to be expected, agreed at once to move
in. In 63 b.c. he invaded Judea and took Jerusalem after a three-
month siege. Out of curiosity he invaded the Holy of Holies in the
Temple but did it no harm otherwise.
Pompey ended by deciding in favor of John Hyrcanus II. He left
him as high priest and carried off Aristobulus II and his two sons to
Rome.
The Roman did not allow Hyrcanus any secular power, however.
He gave that over to Antipater the Idumean in return for Antipater's
MATTHEW 7Sl
services to the Roman cause. (It was good policy to do so. Antipatcr,
an Idumean, could never be accepted wholeheartedly by the narrowly
nationalistic Jews, and he would therefore always require Roman sup-
port to keep his position safe against his subjects. While he needed the
Roman soldiers, he would naturally be loyal to the Roman cause.)
Thus, in 63 B.C., a little more than a century after the revolt of
Mattathias and his sons, the Maccabean monarchy came to an end.
The fate of the last Maccabees was generally sad. Aristobulus II and
his elder son, Alexander, escaped from Rome and made an attempt to
regain the kingdom, but they were captured and both were killed in
49 b.c. The younger son, Antigonus Mattathias, survived. Before he
died the elder son had married Alexandra, daughter of John Hyrcanus
II, and by her had had a son, Aristobulus III.
There were thus, in 49 b.c, three male Maccabees left: (1) John
Hyrcanus II, the high priest; (2) his nephew, Antigonus Mattathias;
and (3) his grandson, Aristobulus III. The real ruler remained An-
tipater the Idumean.
But now it was Rome itself that was involved in a civil war. The
general, Pompey, had gone to war with another and greater Roman
general, Julius Caesar; and Pompey died in the course of the struggle.
Antipater had made his way carefully among the contending factions
and when Caesar emerged as victor, Antipater found himself still in
favor, even though he had been Pompey 's man to begin with.
But Caesar was assassinated in 44 b.c. and a new civil war erupted.
Antipater the Idumean was assassinated in 43 b.c. and his sure ability to
maneuver safely over slippery footing was removed.
Furthermore, Parthia, which ruled Babylonia and vast regions to the
east, took advantage of the Roman civil wars to strike westward. For a
while it was as though the times of Nebuchadnezzar were reborn, as
conquering horsemen rode out of the east to take over Syria and Judea
in 40 b.c.
The Jews welcomed the Parthians, though, as they had never wel-
comed the Chaldeans, for they saw the Parthians as rescuers from the
Romans. Antipater's older son, Phasael, was killed in war against the in-
vaders, and the high priest, John Hyrcanus II, was carried off into cap-
tivity. What's more, his ears were cut off so that, as a physically muti-
lated person, he could never serve as high priest again.
In place of the mutilated Hyrcanus, Antigonus Mattathias was made
king and high priest. One might almost imagine the Maccabean king-
786
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
dom to have been restored but, of course, the new king served merely
as a Parthian puppet.
But Antipater the Idumean had a second son, Herodes (called
Herod in English). He was, like his father, Jewish in religion, though
an Idumean by descent. Under his father, he had served as governor of
Galilee. When the Parthians took Judea, Herod managed to escape
and made his way to Rome.
In Rome he persuaded the Roman general, Marcus Antonius (Mark
Antony), who was then in power, to declare him king of Judea and
to outlaw Antigonus Mattathias. Herod then returned to Judea and
found the Parthians already on the run before a Roman counterattack.
With the help of Roman arms, Herod invaded Judea and, after three
years, took Jerusalem itself in 37 d.c. Antigonus Mattathias was ex-
ecuted.
Now two Maccabees were left. John Hyrcanus II returned from
captivity in 36 b.c, but his cropped ears kept him permanently retired,
so his grandson, Aristobulus III, served as high priest.
Herod, although king now with the full support of the Romans,
could never feel secure while there were Maccabees alive about
whom a nationalist revolt might center.
He tried to neutralize the Maccabean attraction by entering into a
marriage alliance with the family. Aristobulus III had a sister, Mariamne
(still another version of the Hebrew name, Miriam), and Herod took
her as his second wife.
Even that did not erase his insecurity. He had Aristobulus III ex-
ecuted in 35 b.c. and the crop-eared Hyrcanus in 30 b.c. In a fit of
jealousy he killed his wife, Mariamne, in 29 d.c. and that was the end
of the Maccabees, except for Herod's own children by Mariamne.
(Herod, the Henry VIII of his time, married eight times after Mari-
amne's death, so that he had ten wives altogether, although only one
at a time.)
The birth of Jesus during the reign of Herod raises an interesting
point in chronology. The Romans dated events from the year in which,
according to legend, the city of Rome had been founded. That year
was 1 a.u.c, where the initials stand for ab urbe condita ("from the
founding of the city"). According to this scheme, Pompey took
Jerusalem in the year 690 a.u.c.
Unfortunately, however, none of the gospels date the birth of Jesus
according to this scheme or, for that matter, according to one of the
MATTHEW
787
other schemes used in the Bible. The evangelists might have used
the Seleucid era that was used in the books of the Maccabees, for
instance. Or they might have named the number of the year of
Herod's reign after the fashion of the dating in 1 and 2 Kings.
But no scheme was used. Matthew simply says "in the days of Herod
the king" and anything closer than that must be worked out by deduc-
tion.
Some five hundred years after the time of Jesus, such deductions were
made by a scholarly theologian and astronomer named Dionysius
Exiguus, who lived in Rome. He maintained that Jesus had been
born in 753 a.u.c, and this date for Jesus' birth was widely accepted.
Gradually, as the centuries passed, the old Roman system of counting
the years was dropped. Instead, it became customary to count the years
from the birth of Jesus. That year was aj>. 1, or "Anno Domini" ("the
year of our Lord").
The years prior to the birth of Jesus were labeled b.c. ("before
Christ"). Thus, if Jesus was born in 753 a.u.c, then Rome was
founded 753 years before his birth, or 753 b.c. The entire system of
dating used in this book (and, indeed, in any modern history book)
follows this "Christian Era" or "Dionysian Era" in which aj>. 1 is
equated with 753 a.u.c.
And yet scholarship in the centuries since Dionysius Exiguus has
made a revision necessary. For instance, from sources outside the Bible
it is quite clear that Herod ascended the throne in 716 a.u.c, that is,
37 b.c. He reigned for thirty-three years, dying in 749 a.u.c. or 4 b.c.
But if that is so, it is impossible for Jesus to have been bom in
753 a.u.c. and still have been bom "in the days of Herod the king,"
since Herod had died four years before. If Jesus were born in the time
of Herod then he must have been born no later than 4 b.c. (four
years "before Christ,'' which certainly seems paradoxical).
And even this is merely the latest he could have been bom by that
verse in Matthew. He could well have been born earlier, and some
have suggested dates even as early as 17 b.c.
Wise Men from the East
The birth of Jesus was accompanied by remarkable circumstances,
according to Matthew, who tells first of a pilgrimage to the place of
Jesus' birth:
788
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew 2:1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of ]udaea
in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from
the east to Jerusalem . . .
"Wise men" is a translation of the Greek "magoi," which has en-
tered our language by way of the Latin as "magi." The word is derived
from "magu," the name given to their priests by the Persian Zoro-
astrians.
Throughout ancient history, the priests were considered the
repositories of important knowledge. Not only did they know the
techniques for the propitiation of the gods, but— in Babylonia particu-
larly—they studied the heavenly bodies and their influences upon the
course of human affairs. The priests were therefore learned astrologers
(who, in the course of their studies, picked up considerable legitimate
astronomy as well).
The Jews had learned of the Babylonian priesthood in the time of
the Exile, and in the Book of Daniel the word "Chaldean" is used as
synonymous with "wise man." If the Jews had forgotten this, there
was occasion to refurbish that knowledge during the brief Parthian
supremacy over Judea. (The arcane powers of the "magi" are memorial-
ized in our language, by the way, with the word "magic," which is
derived from "magi.")
The tale of the wise men is short. They come to see the infant Jesus,
they leave presents, and depart; their impact on legend is great, how-
ever. In the popular imagination, the wise men have been taken to be
three in number and have become three kings and have even been
given names: Melchior, Gasper, and Balthazar.
According to medieval legend, their bodies were taken by Helena
(the mother of Constantine I, the first emperor to become Christian)
to Constantinople. From there, they were eventually removed to Milan,
Italy, and still later to Cologne, Germany. There, in Cologne Cathe-
dral, they are supposed to be buried, so that they are sometimes re-
ferred to as the "Three Kings of Cologne."
King of the Jews
The wise men, having arrived in Jerusalem, had a simple question:
Matthew 2:2. . . . Where is he that is bom King of the Jews? . . .
MATTHEW
789
They were searching, in other words, for the Messiah.
There had been a decline in the passionate intensity of longing for
a Messiah during the palmy days of the Maccabees, but the longing
had not disappeared altogether. After all, the Maccabees did not set up
a completely ideal state that ruled over all the world and, in any case,
they were not of the Davidic line.
To be sure, the Maccabees realized that dreams of a Messiah would
have to be directed against their own Levite dynasty, unless properly
deflected, and they must have encouraged writings that would tend to
do this.
During the Maccabean period, for instance, the apocryphal work
"The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" appeared. This purported
to be a transcript of the last words of the twelve sons of Jacob as they
lay on their deathbeds. Passages in it pointed clearly to a Levite Mes-
siah. Psalm no, with its mention of Melchizedek as both king and high
priest (see page I- 504) although not of Davidic lineage— having lived,
in fact, nearly a thousand years before David— may have been used to
support the Maccabees, too. (Indeed, some suspect the psalm may have
been written in early Maccabean times and slipped into the canon at
the last minute.)
All attempts, however, to set up a Levite Messiah must have failed
to win any enthusiasm at all among the Jews generally. The prophetic
writings were too clear on the point of the Davidic descent of the Mes-
siah and the hallowed memory of David himself and of the empire
he founded remained too sharp and clear. Messianic hopes may have
ebbed under the Maccabees but what hope remained was for a Messiah
of the line of David.
And then the Maccabees were gone. Despite the heroism of Judas
Maccabeus and his brothers, despite the conquests of John Hyrcanus I
and Alexander Jannaeus, the line had been a brief and, in the end,
unsuccessful interlude in Jewish history. And those who piously awaited
the Messiah might well have been pleased, rather than otherwise, at
the Maccabean failure. After all, the Maccabees were not of the stock of
David; how could they possibly have succeeded?
Now under the heavy hand of Herod, the alien from Idumea, and
under the still heavier weight of the Roman arms that supported him,
the Jews were growing increasingly restive. Surely it was time for the
Messiah to come, establish himself as the ideal King of the Jews,
bring the heathen oppressors to justice, and place all the world under
790
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
his mild rule so that all peoples everywhere might finally come to
Jerusalem to worship.
There is no reason to be surprised that the Messianic fervor in Judea
made itself felt far outside the borders of the land. There were large
colonies of Jews outside Judea, notably in Alexandria and in Babylonia.
The three wise men from the east could, conceivably, have heard of
such matters from the Jews in their land and been impressed by the
tale.
The Star
But even if the wise men had heard of Jewish speculations as to
the Messiah, what made them choose that moment to head for
Jerusalem? It would have to be divine inspiration and Matthew casts
that inspiration, quite fittingly, into the form of an astrological mani-
festation—something that would professionally interest the Babylonian
priesthood:
Matthew 2:2 .. . Where is he that is bom King of the Jews?
for we Jiave seen his star in the east, and are come to worship
him.
There is nothing in Old Testament prophecy to make a star the
specific manifestation of the Messiah. To be sure, one of Balaam's
oracles states:
Numbers 24:17. . . . there shall come a Star out of Jacob . . .
and shall smite the comers of Moab . . .
and this has been taken as a Messianic utterance by many. Neverthe-
less, modem scholars accept this as a reference to David, written into
the oracle in the time of the kingdom and attributed to the legendary
sage Balaam.
Then, too, there is a passage in Isaiah which goes:
Isaiah 60:3. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings
to the brightness of thy rising.
This refers to Isaiah's vision of an ideal Jerusalem, to arise after
the return from exile, but it is easy to interpret it as referring also
to the Messianic period and, specifically, to the manner in which
MATTHEW
791
the wise men of the east followed the light of the star to the birth
of Jesus.
If, however, Matthew has this in mind, he does not quote the verse
from Isaiah.
If Matthew had quoted that verse, it might be easier to accept
the star as a miraculous manifestation of divine guidance visible only
to the wise men and to no one else. But Matthew calmly refers
to the star without reference to prophecy, as though it were a perfectly
natural phenomenon (bent to the divine purpose, of course) and
much effort and imagination has been expended to determine what
that natural phenomenon might have been.
The most obvious solution would be that the star was a "nova"—
a new star appearing suddenly in the heavens, possibly attaining
startling brightness, and then fading out to invisibility after some
months.
Such events have indeed been known to happen. Astronomers
know that stars can sometimes explode and increase in brightness a
millionfold or more for a short period of time. In the case of partic-
ularly tremendous explosions ("supemovae") among stars reasonably
close to ourselves, the result may be the sudden appearance of a star
that will grow as bright as the planet Venus in a spot where previously
no star bright enough to be seen by the naked eye had been visible.
Three such supemovae have been known to have appeared in the
last thousand years— one in 1054, one in 1572, and one in 1604. Could
one also have appeared in Herod's time?*
It seems doubtful. Surely such a supernova would have been noticed.
Of course, the supernova of 1054 was not noticed by European
astronomers, but this was during the Dark Ages, when astronomy in
Europe was virtually nonexistent. It was observed by astronomers in
China and Japan, and we have their records. (We know they were
correct because in the spot where they located their "guest-star" there
is now a cloudy ball of gas that is the clear remnant of an explosion.)
In Herod's time, Greek astronomy was still alive, however, even
though past its greatest day, and a supernova would most certainly
have been noted and referred to. It seems quite unlikely that such a
reference would not have existed and survived to our time and so the
chance of a supernova is generally dismissed.
Another possibility is that the star might have been the result of a
close approach of two or more of the heavenly bodies, so that they
792
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
would shine together with abnormal brightness for a short period of
time. The only bodies in the skies that move independently against
the starry background are the planets, and occasionally two or more
approach fairly close to each other.
Astronomers understand these movements quite well now and can
trace them back with considerable accuracy for thousands of years. They
can tell, for instance, that in 7 B.C., Jupiter and Saturn approached
each other quite closely.
The approach was not so close as to make it in the least possible
that observers would mistake the two for a single unusually bright
star. Still, there is no reason to suppose this would be necessary. The
close approach of the two planets is a rare event (although a still
closer approach of Jupiter and Satum than that in 7 b.c. took place
in 1941 ) and to astrologers there might have been significance in it. It
is not inconceivable that the approach might in the minds of some
have been associated with the coming of a Messiah.
And, finally, there is the possibility of a bright comet. Comets come
and go erratically and, until a little over two centuries ago, there was
no known method to predict those comings and goings. Comets were
generally considered to presage disasters— plagues, wars, deaths of nota-
ble men— but to the wise men of the east perhaps a particular comet
might have been associated with the coming of the Messiah.
Nowadays we can calculate the paths of a number of comets and can
trace them backward in time. We can know of one comet that did
appear in the reign of Herod. This was Halley's Comet, which made
one of its returns of every seventy-six years to the inner Solar System in
the year 11 b.c.
One might suppose then that in the decades following Jesus' death,
when his disciples piously scraped together whatever records they could
find of his life, some might remember the appearance of an unusual
phenomenon in the heavens at about the time of his birth— either
Halley's Comet or the close approach of Jupiter and Saturn. The Jews
were not themselves astronomers (indeed, they eschewed astronomy,
because the study of the stars in those days was invariably and
notoriously associated with heathen idolatry) and would describe any
such manifestation as simply "a star."
Matthew may well have picked up the story, with the miraculous
associations that gathered about it, and included it in his gospel.
MATTHEW
793
Bethlehem
The question of the wise men was a disturbing one:
Matthew 2:3. When Herod the king had heard these things, he
was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
Herod and "all Jerusalem" (that is, the ruling groups of the city,
whose welfare was tied to the king and his court) might well be
troubled by any rumor that a possible Messiah had arisen. For one
thing, such a Messiah would be considered the rightful king of Judea,
and Herod would suddenly be a usurper in the eyes of all pious Jews.
It is a rare king who would willingly face the possibility of being re-
moved from the kingship, without some attempt to protect himself.
In fact, in all kingdoms, ancient and modem, any attempt by someone
other than the king to declare himself the rightful king, or to be
declared so by others, is considered treason and treated as such.
It might be argued that the concern of Herod and the aristocracy
was not only for themselves, but for the nation as a whole, too. Herod is
usually pictured as a bloody, cruel tyrant, but this is largely through the
picture drawn of him by the Jews who opposed him and by this
chapter of the New Testament. If this is disregarded, and if the excesses
of his private life (which were horrible but not noticeably more so
than those of other rulers of his time) are also discounted, then Herod
seems to have been a capable ruler who made a considerable (though
futile) effort to win the regard of the people he governed. Reports of
Messiahs were indeed dangerous to everyone in Judea, from Herod's
standpoint, more so to the people, in fact, than to Herod himself
(who was old and was soon to be removed from his throne in the
ordinary course of nature anyway).
The trouble was that to the more militant Jewish nationalists, there
seemed no question but that the Messiah would prove a warrior-king,
a super-David who would settle matters with the Romans, and make
Judea what it should rightly be— the master of the world. This would
happen because the Messiah would be rilled with the Spirit of the Lord
and God himself would fight on behalf of the nation as he had done so
many times in the past.
Indeed, there was the example of the Maccabean revolt, of the
794
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
courage and devotion of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers in turning
back and defeating the powerful Seleucid kingdom.
It is not difficult to see that the glorious victories of Judas must have
had, in the end, a disastrous influence on Jewish history, for it rilled
Judea with enthusiastic nationalists who discounted mere disparities of
number and power. The Romans, to them, seemed as capable of being
beaten by sheer determination, patriotic fervor, and trust in God, as
the Seleucids had been.
Those Jews who were less blind to Earthly realities and less confident
of divine support, understood the great strength of Rome and must
have viewed nationalist agitation with absolute terror. They must have
realized that there was the constant danger of a suicidal uprising;
one that would be followed by the full exertion of Roman power, which
would descend like a sledge hammer, crushing the state into extinction,
nationalists and moderates alike. This was no idle fear, either, for at
the time of Jesus' birth exactly such a tragic denouement was just
seventy years in the future.
Herod might therefore be viewed as clearly feeling it to be his duty
to nip all Messianic hopes in the bud— for the good of all. He therefore
inquired of the chief priests and scribes (those best acquainted, that
is, with Biblical lore) as to where the Messiah might be found.
Matthew 2:5. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea:
for thus it is written by the prophet,
Matthew 2:6. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda [Judah]
. . . out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people
Israel.
The reference is to a quotation from Micah (see page 1-653)- Th us >
the "little town of Bethlehem," locally famous till then as the birthplace
of David, entered a new career of world-wide fame as the reputed
birthplace of Jesus.
Herod next instructed the wise men to go to Bethlehem and to
bring him back news of the child that he might worship him too.
There is no question, though, that his real intention was to do away
with the supposed Messiah. This is so certain that Matthew doesn't
even bother to specify it at that moment.
The wise men depart and:
Matthew 2:9. . . . the star, which they saw in the east, went
before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
MATTHEW
795
Because of the association of the star with the place of birth of Jesus
at Bethlehem, it is commonly called "the star of Bethlehem."
The Children ... in Bethlehem
The wise men worshipped the child, left their gifts, and then-
warned in a dream (a favorite device of Matthew's)— left without
reporting back to Herod. Herod, lacking the knowledge he needed,
desperately ordered a general killing of all the infants in Bethlehem,
hoping to include among them the reputed Messiah:
Matthew 2:16. Then Herod . . . sent forth, and slew all the
children that were in Bethlehem . . . from two years old and
under . . .
Matthew 2:17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by
Jeremy [Jeremiah] the prophet, saying,
Matthew 2:18. Jn Rama [Ramah] was there a voice heard,
lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for
her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
The reference is to a passage in Jeremiah (see page I- 560) which
refers to the carrying off of Israel into exile by Sargon. Rachel was the
ancestress of the chief tribes of Israel, Ephraim, and Manasseh, and
her weeping over "her children" is therefore metaphorically apt. The
tribe of Benjamin was also descended from Rachel, and Jeremiah,
brought up in Benjamite territory, would be sensitive to the thought of
Rachel's weeping; Ramah being a town in Benjamin that was a tradi-
tional site of Rachel's grave.
The application of the verse from Jeremiah to the "slaughter of the
innocents" by Herod is far less apt. To be sure, such a slaughter would
be well worth bewailing, but the fact remains that Leah, not Rachel,
was the ancestress of the Judeans, and the children of Bethlehem were
Judeans. Perhaps the use of the quotation was suggested to Matthew
by the fact that there was a tradition that placed Rachel's grave close
to Bethlehem:
Genesis 35:19. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to
. . . BethAehem.
796
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
And yet this dreadful deed of Herod's seems very likely to be
apocryphal. It is hard to believe that it ever happened. Not only is
the slaughter not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament, but
it is not mentioned in any of the secular histories of the time, either.
It is rather remarkable that such a deed would be overlooked when
many more far less wicked deeds of Herod were carefully described.
Surely Matthew would not have accepted this tale of the killing of
the infants merely because of his eagerness to introduce a not-very-apt
quotation.
Perhaps something more is involved. Many heroes of pagan legend
survived infancy only after a narrow escape from some king who tried
to kill him. This is true of legends concerning Cyrus, who founded the
Persian Empire, and Romulus, who founded Rome. Cyrus had a
grandfather and Romulus a great-uncle who, in each case, were kings
and had divine foreknowledge that the just-born child would someday
depose them. Both children were exposed and left to die; both survived.
In Jewish legend, Abraham, as an infant, miraculously survived the
attempts of evil King Nimrod upon his life. It is not surprising that
similar tales might arise concerning Jesus after his death.
Out of perhaps many such tales that were spread about, Matthew
chose one he felt best suited the situation. The Biblical tale of
Moses' infancy involves the child's suspense-filled escape after Pharaoh
had ordered the indiscriminate slaughter of the Israelite children . . .
Exodus 1:15. And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew mid-
wives . . .
Exodus 1:16. . . . When ye do the office of a midwife to the
Hebrew women ... if it be a son, then ye shall kill him . . .
Moses escaped Pharaoh's slaughter and Jesus escaped Herod's
slaughter. It may have been this parallel that was in Matthew's mind.
He seized upon this particular tale and buttressed it with the quotation
from Jeremiah in order to present Jesus as a new and greater Moses.
Egypt
The infant Jesus escaped the slaughter because Joseph, like the wise
men, was warned in a dream:
MATTHEW
797
Matthew 2:13. . . . Arise, and take the young child and his
mother, and flee into Egypt . . .
Matthew 2:14. When he arose, he took the young chUd and his
mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
Matthew 2:15. And was there until the death of Herod: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken . . . by the prophet, saying,
Out of Egypt have I called my son.
The reference is to the prophet, Hosea:
Hosea 11:1. When Israel was a chUd, then I loved him, and called
my son out of Egypt.
On the face of it that verse in Hosea is a clear reference to the Exodus
and it is only Matthew's quotation of it that would make anyone give
it Messianic significance. Indeed, it might seem natural to wonder if the
flight into Egypt was introduced only so that Matthew could indulge
in his favorite exercise of quoting an Old Testament verse, for Jesus'
stay in Egypt is not referred to in any other place in the New
Testament.
One might speculate that here too, perhaps, Matthew adopted a
tradition for inclusion in his gospel in order to make even clearer the
parallel he was drawing between Moses and Jesus. Moses came out of
Egypt— and so did Jesus.
Archelaus
Eventually Herod died (in 4 b.c, as stated earlier), perhaps not long
after Jesus' birth:
Matthew 2:22. . . . Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of
his father Herod . . .
Herod, with his many wives, had many children (fourteen all told)
but few survived him. This was not only the results of the natural
hazards of infancy, but because of Herod's own pathologically suspicious
nature, particularly in later life. He was easily moved to anger by hints
of possible conspiracies against him. It was this which led him to kill his
beloved wife, Mariamne (the Maccabean), and to follow that, eventu-
798
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
ally, by the execution of the two sons she bore him. He had other sons
also executed, including his oldest, Antipater.
Upon his death, however, he still had several sons surviving; including
Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip. He divided his kingdom among them.
(The family name, Herod, is often added to the names of these sons,
so that we may speak of Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod
Philip. The name Herod was almost a throne name for those descend-
ants of Antipater the Idumean who ruled over parts of the land.)
Archelaus, the eldest survivor, was given control of the core of the
realm: Judea, with Samaria, to the north and Idumea to the south.
Herod tried to give him the title of king, too, but the Roman Emperor,
who had to approve Herod's will, refused to allow it. Archelaus was
given the lesser title of "ethnarch" (equivalent to "provincial
governor") as though deliberately to lessen his prestige and power.
Antipas received Galilee for his share, as well as Perea, the district
east of the Jordan River (which had once been called Gilead, (see page
I-191). Philip received Iturea, the district east and north of the Sea of
Galilee.
Antipas and Philip were both called "tetrarchs" ("ruler of a fourth
part of a province"), which would have made literal sense if Herod's
kingdom had been divided among four sons rather than three. How-
ever, it might be reasoned that Archelaus, as the eldest, received a
double share and ruled two fourths of the kingdom while Antipas and
Philip ruled one fourth each.
Nazareth
Once Herod died, it was safe for Joseph and his family to return,
and he is so informed by an angel in terms which again reinforce the
parallel between Moses and Jesus:
Matthew 2:19. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the
Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
Matthew 2:20. Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his
mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which
sought the young child's life.
The parallel is to the period when Moses fled into Midian after he
had killed the Egyptian overseer (see page I-129). There he remained
till Pharaoh's death, upon which he is told by God:
MATTHEW
799
The Divisions of Herod's Kingdom
801)
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Exodus 4:19. . . . Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead
which sought thy life.
But Matthew now faces a problem. He has reported the traditions
that clustered about Jesus' birth at the Messianic city of Bethlehem
and everything he says is consistent with the view that Bethlehem was
the native town of the family; that they lived there as their ancestors
had lived there before them. It would therefore be natural for them to
return to Bethlehem after Herod's death, but this would not do.
Jesus, during his ministry, was considered a native of Galilee. He is
constantly referred to as a Galilean and no reference is made, during
his ministry, of his birth in Bethlehem.
It is therefore necessary for Matthew to explain how Joseph and his
family, although natives of Bethlehem, came to live in Galilee— and
very soon after Jesus' birth, too, so that his Bethlehem origin might not
play much role in his adulthood.
Joseph is described, therefore, as indeed setting out for Bethlehem
after Herod's death:
Matthew 2:22. But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus did
reign in Judaea . . . he was afraid to go thither, notwithstanding,
being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of
Galilee . . .
This is not unreasonable. Archelaus, the son of Herod, might have
heard of the tale of the birth of the Messiah shortly before his father's
death and he might be just as anxious to do away with the dangerous
youngster. To be sure, Galilee was under the control of another son of
Herod, but it may well be that Joseph judged Antipas to be the less
dangerous of the two.
Certainly Archelaus, by his behavior, soon antagonized both the
Jews and Samaritans under his rule to such an extent that, although
they were bitter enemies who could virtually never agree, they did agree
in their detestation of the new ruler. Both appealed desperately to
Rome for relief, and such was the justice of their case that Archelaus
was removed from office after he had ruled ten years. Herod Antipas,
on the other hand, ruled for over forty years without too greatly
antagonizing his subjects, a good sign perhaps that he was milder and
more reasonable than his brother.
MATTHEW
801
Matthew goes on to specify the town in Galilee to which Joseph
brought his family:
Matthew 2:23. And he [Joseph] came and dwelt in a city called
Nazareth . . .
Nazareth, a town in southern Galilee, is not mentioned in the Old
Testament. The modem city usually identified as Nazareth lies just
halfway between the Mediterranean Sea and the southern edge of the
Sea of Galilee, about twenty miles from each. It is some seventy miles
due north of Bethlehem. Its population today is about twenty-six
thousand. It is part of the modern nation of Israel, but most of its
inhabitants are Christians.
Matthew goes on to explain the coming of Joseph and his family to
Nazareth in terms of Old Testament prophecy:
Matthew 2:23. . . . that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
What quotation Matthew might have in mind here is uncertain.
Certainly at no point in the Old Testament is the Messiah referred to
as a Nazarene in the sense that he was to be living in Nazareth.
It could be that Matthew stumbles into a confusion with Nazarite
here (see page I-248) and that the reference is to the passage where
Samson's mother is warned by an angel of a forthcoming son who is to
fulfull God's purpose. The angel says:
Judges 13:5. . . . the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the
womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the
Philistines.
Another possibility is that what Matthew is referring to is the habit
of calling the Messiah the "Branch"— that is, the new, flourishing
growth from the decaying stump of the Davidic line. This first appeared
in Isaiah:
Isaiah 11:1. And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of
Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots . . .
As a result, prophets began to speak of the "Branch" as a covert
way of referring to the Messiah, when an open mention might have
been interpreted as treason. When Zechariah speaks of the Messiah,
he says:
802
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Zechariah 6:12. . . . Behold the man whose name is The Branch
• • •
The Hebrew word for "Branch" in this case is "netzer," and
Matthew may see a similarity here to "Nazarene."
In either case, whether Matthew is matching Nazarene and Nazarite,
or Nazarene and Netzer, he is indulging in, at best, a play on words,
and is not referring to any actual prophecy of the Messiah being an
inhabitant of Nazareth.
John the Baptist
Matthew now passes from the tales of Jesus' birth and childhood
and comes immediately to his adult work and what seems to be, in this
and the other synoptic gospels, the final year of his life. No date is
given in Matthew for this final year. It is merely stated:
Matthew 3:1. In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in
the wilderness of Judaea . . .
A more careful chronological note in the Gospel of St. Luke,
which will be discussed in time (see page 937) , suggests the date is
aj>. 29, at which time Jesus must have been at least thirty-three years
old, very likely thirty-five, and just possibly even older.
John the Baptist is the first of several important individuals named
John in the New Testament. The Hebrew version of the name is
more closely represented as Johanan and it is in this form that it
appears in the Old Testament. The eldest son of Josiah was Johanan,
as was the eldest of the five Maccabean brothers.
The Greek version of Johanan is Ioannes and this eventually reached
English as John.
John the Baptist could be considered the last of the Hebrew
prophets of the old school. Like the prophets of the Old Testament, he
maintained that the day of the Lord was at hand and the final
establishment of the ideal world was imminent. The burden of his
preaching was:
Matthew y.2. . . . Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand.
MATTHEW S(B
By "kingdom of Heaven" is meant "kingdom of God," with heaven
substituted because Matthew shares the increasing reluctance of the
Jews of the time to use any divine name. The expression "kingdom of
God" is freely used in the New Testament outside Matthew.
What's more the establishment of the kingdom of God is to be
preceded by a thorough winnowing of good from evil, saints from
sinners, as had been promised by the earlier prophets too:
Matthew 3:11. ... he that cometh after me is mightier than
I . . .
Matthew 3:12. . . . he will throughly purge his floor, and gather
his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with un-
quenchable fire.
Those who came to John in repentance were baptized; that is,
dipped in water ("baptize" is from a Greek word meaning "dip in
water" ) in a symbolic washing away of sin and preparation for the new
state of affairs.
Baptism was not a rite prominent in Jewish practice. Ezekiel speaks
of the symbolic use of water to cleanse Jews after the profanation of
their exile among the heathen and their exposure to heathen practices:
Ezekiel 36:24. For I will take you from among the heathen, . . .
and will bring you into your own land . . .
Ezekiel 36:25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean . . .
Ezekiel 36:26. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit
will I put within you . . .
And this was what John the Baptist claimed to be doing by means of
the baptismal rite. He used the water of the Jordan River and we might
wonder whether he was not influenced here by Elisha's words to the
Syrian leper Naaman (see page I- 360) :
2 Kings 5:10. . . . Go and wash in fordan . . . and thou shalt
be clean.
Whatever use Jews may have put baptism to, however, circumcision
remained the rite marking the true entry of the Gentile into the brother-
hood of Judaism. In Christian practice, partly as a result of the work of
John the Baptist, baptism replaced circumcision as the initiatory rite.
804
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Elijah
One might assume from the words quoted by Matthew of the
Baptist's teachings, that John was awaiting the imminent arrival of the
divine fury of a warlike king of heaven and that the last chapter of
Earthly history was at hand. In Christian tradition, however, he is the
forerunner of Jesus, a Messiah who did not at all fit the imaginings of
the Jewish nationalists.
Matthew characteristically interprets the Baptist's role in terms of an
Old Testament verse:
Matthew 3:3. For this [John] is he that was spoken of by the
prophet Esaias [Isaiah], saying, The voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
This verse comes from the very beginning of the utterances of the
Second Isaiah (see page I-547 ) :
Isaiah 40:3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of tlie Lord, make straight in the desert a highway
for our God.
It is possible to interpret this verse, in view of its position, as a
reference by the Second Isaiah to himself, almost as a title to his
writings. In this view, the verse might represent something like "Utter-
ances, by a Prophet that Crieth in the Wilderness." And yet, to be sure,
even if this were the primary meaning of the verse, it might well seem
applicable to some future precursor of the Messiah.
Certainly John the Baptist viewed himself as the precursor of the
Messiah and even saw the precise role he was playing, for he seemed to
model himself deliberately on Elijah:
Matthew 3:4. And the same John had his raiment of earners hair,
and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and
wild honey.
Compare this with a description of Elijah in the Old Testament:
2 Kings 1:8. . . . He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle
of leather about his loins . . .
MATTHEW
805
John's ascetic diet of food which one might gather in the desert (and
the ascetic diet, with much fasting, that he imposed upon his disciples)
called to mind the time that Elijah remained in the wilderness, eating
nothing more than was brought to him, miraculously, by ravens:
1 Kings 17:6. And the ravens brought him [Elijah] bread and
jiesh in the morning, and ... in the evening; and he drank of the
brook.
The re-enactment of Elijah was not without its point. A late develop-
ment in Jewish Messianic thinking had been that Elijah would return
to Earth as a precursor of the Messiah. Indeed, the last passage of the
last prophetic book of the Bible makes this statement:
Malachi 4:5. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before
the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord . . .
In the Christian versions of the Bible, Malachi is the last book of the
Old Testament and there is a kind of neatness about the fact that the
last book of the Old Testament ends with the promise of Elijah, and the
first book of the New Testament opens with a prophet modeling him-
self on Elijah.
Matthew later quotes Jesus as confirming this identification of John
the Baptist and Elijah:
Matthew 17:12. But I say unto you, That Elias [Elijah] is come
already, and they knew him not . . .
Matthew 17:13. Than the disciples understood that he spake unto
them of John the Baptist.
Pharisees and Sadducees
John's preaching was popular— he was what we would today call a
successful revivalist. The fact of his popularity rests not only on
Biblical evidence, but on that of Josephus, who mentions John the
Baptist with approval.
Nor was it the nameless common herd alone that flocked to be
baptized. Some of the leaden of the religious thought of the time
came as well; perhaps sincerely, perhaps out of curiosity, perhaps a little
of both.
806
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew 3:7. . . . he [John the Baptist] saw many of the Phari-
sees and Sadducees come to his baptism . . .
The Pharisees and Sadducees are two of the Jewish religious sects of
the period; sects that had their origin in the travail of the Seleucid
persecution and the Maccabean rebellion.
There were Jews who were sympathetic to Hellenism and who did
not take part in the rebellion; who even fought on the side of the
Seleucids against the Maccabees (see page 729) .
Even after the success of the rebellion, there were many Jews who
felt some sympathy with Hellenism and were loath to expand Jewish
ritual and make Jewish life more and more different from that of the
rest of the world.
Naturally, these tended to be drawn from among the upper classes.
These were more apt to have a knowledge of Greek and to have
studied Hellenic culture. In particular (and almost paradoxically) they
included the high priests and their circles. Indeed, the party called itself
the "Zadokim," presumably from Zadok, the first of the high priests of
the Temple of Solomon. The word Zadokim became Saddoukaioi in
Greek and Sadducees in English.
The Sadducees accepted only the written law (there was no avoiding
that) and refused all the embroidery that tradition and custom had
added to it in the centuries since the Exile. They refused to accept the
beliefs and legends of angels, spirits, and demons which had expanded
in the Persian and Greek periods; nor did they accept the doctrines of
resurrection and an afterlife of reward and punishment.
It seems odd to moderns to read of an important Jewish sect in
Roman times denying the resurrection, but actually that doctrine did
arise late. References to it appear in the Old Testament only in very
late passages. The clearest reference is at the end of Daniel, just about
the last book to be added to the canon:
Daniel 12:2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
everlasting contempt.
Opposed to the Hellenizers during the Maccabean revolt were the
Assideans or, in Hebrew, Hasidim (see page 718) , a word meaning
"the pious ones." They were laymen and country folk who utterly
rejected Hellenism and who held to a colorful variety of Judaism
MATTHEW 807
about which all sorts of traditions had grown. (This is not an unusual
phenomenon. Compare today the subtle Christianity of the ministers of
important urban congregations and the manner in which it accepts
modern science and contemporary thought, with the fervor and tradi-
tionalism of those who accept the "old-time religion" in what is called
the Bible Belt.)
After the revolt had succeeded, the Assideans developed into two
groups. The smaller of the two were the Essenes, who never numbered
more than a few thousand. The name is of unknown derivation but is
sometimes traced back to a Hebrew word meaning "healers." They
lived in isolated communities, practicing celibacy and asceticism, rather
like Christian monks. They are not mentioned in the New Testament,
but scholars speculate on the possibility that John the Baptist may have
been influenced by Essene thought. The main groups of Essenes were
concentrated on the northwestern shores of the Dead Sea, and the
"Dead Sea scrolls," recently discovered, seem to have been the relics of
an Essene-like community.
The greater portion of the Assideans developed into a more worldly
group of pietists, ones less removed from society and taking an active
part in the political developments of the time. They called themselves,
in Aramaic, "Perishaiya," meaning apparently "the separated ones."
Since the word "holy" carries the notion of being separated from
worldly things and consecrated to God, to call one's self "separated"
is not very far removed from calling one's self "holy." This carries a
note of smug self-approval which was, perhaps, the least attractive facet
of this party. The word "Perishaiya" became "Pharisaios" in Greek and
"Pharisees" in English.
The Pharisees accepted not only the written Law itself but also the
oral traditions that had grown up about it. They tended to be milder
in practice than the Sadducees because oral tradition often softened
the harsh letter of the Mosaic Law.
Indeed, Pharisaic teaching at its best very much resembles that of the
New Testament. The Jewish teacher Hillel, who died about a.d. io,
taught a kindly religion of love and represents a kind of Jewish parallel
to the doctrines of Jesus. Hillel was even, purportedly, of the line of
David. However, no miracles are associated with Hillel's name nor did
he (or anyone else on his behalf) ever claim Messiah-hood.
At its worst, though, the Pharisees evolved so many trivial rites as an
adjunct to religion that no one without great study could be sure of
808
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
mastering them all. The Pharisees tended to look down upon those
who, for lack of leisure time or for lack of learning, did not or could
not obey all the ritual, and this did not particularly endear them to the
common people. The people in turn tended to adhere to more
popular and dramatic teachers who gave them the consolation they
needed and demanded a proper inner attitude rather than the mechani-
cal adherence to a complicated set of rites. They turned to men like
John the Baptist, and Jesus. In fact, Jesus' teaching might almost be
considered as Pharisaic ethics without Pharisaic ritual.
The Sadducees and Pharisees took turns at being politically dominant
in the Judea of Maccabean times. Immediately after the rebellion, the
Pharisees were in control, for the Sadducees were tarred with the dis-
grace of having been what we would call, today, "Quislings."
However, although the Seleucid monarchy had been defeated,
Hellenic culture remained as attractive as ever, and the Maccabean
kings began to Hellenize and to take on the role against which their
fathers had fought and died.
The Sadducees therefore regained control of the Temple under
John Hyrcanus I and the Pharisees entered the opposition. (It was at
this time they adopted their name. Perhaps a little self-praise helped
ease the pain of having lost power.)
They were in open revolt under Alexander Jannaeus— a kind of
Maccabean revolt against the Maccabees which was repressed bloodily.
Later, Alexander's widow, Alexandra, made peace with the Pharisees
and for a while things were quiet.
After her death, however, the civil war between her two sons, John
Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II broke out. The Pharisees supported the
former and for a while were in control again. During the reign of
Herod, and afterward, it was again the turn of the Sadducees to be in
power and the Pharisees to be in the opposition.
When representatives of these two parties came to John for baptism
he reviled them both, taking up the stand of the common man, so to
speak, against those who, like the Sadducees, emptied Judaism of its
content and those who, like the Pharisees, filled it too full.
Indeed, he took up a Jeremiah-like attitude. Jeremiah, in his Temple
sermon (see page I-562), had warned that the mere existence of the
Temple would not protect an ethically evil people. John warned that
the mere fact of being Jewish would not serve as protection, either:
MATTHEW
809
Matthew 3:9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have
Abraham to our father: for 1 say unto you, that God is able of these
stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
The Son
Now, finally, Jesus appears as an adult coming to John the Baptist
in order to be baptized.
As it happens, Josephus, who mentions John the Baptist, does not
mention Jesus. There is, to be sure, a paragraph in his history of the
Jews which is devoted to Jesus but it interrupts the flow of the dis-
course and seems suspiciously like an afterthought. Scholars generally
believe this to have been an insertion by some early Christian editor
who, scandalized that Josephus should talk of the period without
mentioning the Messiah, felt the insertion to be a pious act. •
Nor, in fact, is there mention of Jesus in any contemporary or
nearly contemporary record we have, outside the New Testament.
There have been those who have maintained, because of this, that
Jesus never existed, but this seems going too far. The synoptic gospels
do not bear the marks of outright fiction as do the books of Tobit,
Judith, and Esther, for instance. The synoptic gospels are not filled with
anachronisms but prove accurate when they discuss the background of
their times. What they say of John the Baptist, for instance, jibes with
what Josephus says. Moreover, they contain no incidents which seem
flatly to contradict known historical facts.
To be sure, the synoptic gospels are full of miracles and wonder tales
which are accepted, in toto, by many pious Christians. Still, if some
of us, in this rationalist age of ours, wish to discount the miracles and
the element of the divine, there still remains a connected, non-
miraculous, and completely credible and sensible story of the fate of a
Galilean preacher. We can try to trace this story as it is told in
Matthew.
For instance, suppose we discount Matthew's tales of Jesus' birth
and childhood, as after-the-fact traditions designed to accomplish two
things: (1) show him to be a Bethlehem-bom scion of the line of
David, and therefore qualified to be the Messiah, and (2) demonstrate
a similarity between his early career and that of Moses.
810
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
If we do this, then what we might call the "historic Jesus" enters the
scene first as an adult Galilean, who has heard of the preaching of
John the Baptist and has traveled to Judea to be baptized.
As a matter of fact, the gospel of St. Mark, the oldest of the four,
starts exactly in this fashion. There is no mention in Mark of a virgin
birth at Bethlehem, or of any of the tales of the first two chapters of
Matthew. Mark starts with John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus.
With his baptism the "historic Jesus" feels the impulse to become,
himself, a preacher and prophet. In modem terms, he feels the "call to
the ministry," but Matthew expresses it in a fashion appropriate to his
own time.
Matthew 3:16. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight-
way out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him,
and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting
upon him . . .
This, as described here, seems to be a vision which only Jesus
experienced; the heavens were opened "unto him, and he saw." Un-
doubtedly, there was a large crowd being baptized at this time, and
there is no indication, in the synoptic gospels, at least, that this was an
open manifestation visible to all.
The passage goes further than that, however. Jesus is portrayed as
becoming conscious at this time of more than a mere call to preach:
Matthew 3:17. And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
The statement "This is my beloved Son" would seem to mean that
at this moment Jesus knew himself to be the destined King; that is, the
Messiah. Even non-Messianic kings of Judah were considered to be the
adopted sons of Yahveh (see page I-489); how much more so the
Messiah.
This, however, may be a matter of the gospel writer's pious inter-
pretation of matters after the fact. If we try to follow the "historic
Jesus" it would seem that the realization of Messiah-hood came con-
siderably later.
(The phrase "the Son of God" is considered, in Christian thought,
to signify something far more transcendental and subtle than the role
assigned to the Messiah in Jewish thought. The later Christian view
does not, however, appear clearly in the synoptic gospels. It does do so
in the gospel of St John.)
MATTHEW
811
To Mark, the Spirit of God enters Jesus at the time of the baptism,
and it is then and only then, apparently, that he enters his role as
Messiah. In Matthew, however, things can't be that simple. The Spirit
of God, according to him, entered Jesus at the moment of conception
(see page 778) , so that he was bom the Messiah and could scarcely
have need of baptism. Matthew, therefore, must have John the Baptist
recognizing this fact When Jesus came to be baptized:
Matthew 3:14. . . . John forbad him, saying, I have need to be
baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Matthew 3:15. And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to
be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness . . .
And yet this realization, on the part of John, of Jesus' role as
Messiah, does not fit the tale of the "historic Jesus" as told in
Matthew; for at a later period John is clearly revealed as quite uncertain
as to the nature of Jesus' mission.
Satan
Once Jesus felt the desire and impelling drive to become a preacher,
it is reasonable to suppose that he might have retired for a period of
contemplation and decision. What kind of preacher was he to be?
What would be his general approach? What would he try to accom-
plish?
Matthew, expanding on a verse in Mark, puts this into the vocabulary
of the time by recounting how, after the baptism, Jesus retired to the
wilderness, fasted, and was tempted by Satan to adopt the wrong
approach in his ministry. It is characteristic of Matthew that he re-
counts the struggle between Jesus and Satan as a battle of Old Testa-
ment quotations.
Satan urged Jesus, in the first temptation, to satisfy his hunger after
fasting by turning stones to bread, something God ought to be glad to
do at the request of a devout and pious man. Jesus answers that with a
quotation:
Matthew 4:4. But he [Jesus] answered and said, It is written,
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God.
812
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The quotation is from Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 8:3. .. . man doth not live by bread only, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man
live.
This might be interpreted as representing Jesus' decision that his
role was not to aim merely at an improved economy or a betterment of
man's material lot, but to induce moral and ethical regeneration.
Satan next urges Jesus to demonstrate his powers by flinging himself
from the top of the Temple and allowing angels to rescue him.
Matthew 4:6. And [Satan] saith unto him, If thou be the Son
of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels
charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up,
lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Here Satan is described as lending a metaphorical statement in the
Psalms a literal interpretation:
Psalm 91:11. . . . he shall give his angels charge over thee . . .
Psalm 91:12. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou
dash thy foot against a stone.
But Jesus retorted with another quotation:
Matthew 4:7. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt
not tempt the Lord thy God.
(Deuteronomy 6:16. Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God . . . )
That is, God is not to be put to the test and made to perform tricks
to satisfy the vanity or uncertainty of man. This answer might be
interpreted as a decision by Jesus to reject spectacular methods in his
mission; to win hearts, that is, by an exhibition of his goodness and not
of his power. (Actually, the accounts of the evangelists combine the
two aspects and have Jesus demonstrate God's power by miracles of
kindliness— the healing of the sick, for the most part.)
In the final temptation, Satan offers him all the kingdoms of the
world:
Matthew 4:9. ... ATI these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall
down and worship me.
To which Jesus responds with a third quotation:
MATTHEW
813
Matthew 4:10. . . . Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve.
(Deuteronomy 6:13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve
him . . . )
(Deuteronomy 6:14. Ye shall not go after other gods . . . )
Thus, apparently, Jesus rejects the traditional interpretation of the
Messiah as a powerful and ideal king who overthrows the enemies of
Israel by force and establishes his rule over all the world in the fashion
of a super-Alexander.
This decision to be a Messiah of peace rather than one of war is
crucial, apparently, to the tale of the "historic Jesus."
Herodias
Jesus' decision to devote his life to the ministry of God must have
been sharpened by the news of the arrest of John the Baptist, since that
increased the need for someone to take John's place and continue to
spread his message:
Matthew 4:12. Now when fesus had heard that ]ohn was cast
into prison, he departed into Galilee; . . .
. * •
Matthew 4:17. From that time fesus began to preach, and to say,
Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew does not, at this point, give the reason for the arrest of the
Baptist, but he returns to the subject later.
Matthew 14: 3. For Herod had laid hold on John, and hound him,
and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.
Matthew 14:4. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to
have her.
The story behind this is a complicated one. To begin with we must
consider the sons of Herod "the Great" (the king reigning at the time
of Jesus' birth; (see page 786) . Three have been mentioned already
as sharing Herod's dominion after his death. One of these, however,
814
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Herod Archelaus, is now out of the picture, having been deposed in
a.d. 6, a quarter century before the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
Of the other two, we have first, Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of
Galilee and Perea. He was the son of Herod the Great by Malthace,
Herod's sixth wife, who had been a Samaritan. Herod Antipas was,
therefore, half Idumean and half Samaritan by birth and, consequently,
doubly obnoxious to Jewish nationalists. He had been tetrarch ever
since his father's death in 4 b.c. and, indeed, ruled altogether for
forty-three years, a period which was for the most part one of peace and
prosperity for the land.
Second, there is Herod Philip, a son of Herod the Great by his
seventh wife, Cleopatra, a Judean woman (despite her name). Herod
Philip was made tetrarch of Iturea on Herod's death and he may
therefore be called "Philip the Tetrarch." He, too, was still ruling at the
time of Jesus' ministry and seems to have been a model ruler.
But there appears to be still another son of Herod the Great, one
who does not rule over any section of the kingdom and who, to the
confusion of the narration, is also called Philip. We will call him
simply "Philip" to distinguish him from Philip the tetrarch. He was
Herod's son by Herod's fifth wife, Mariamne II. (She must be dis-
tinguished from Mariamne I, who was Herod's second wife.) Mariamne
II was not of Maccabean descent and so Philip was in no way a
Maccabean.
Finally, we have Herodias, who was the daughter of Aristobulus, who
was in turn the son of Herod the Great by Mariamne I. Since it was
Mariamne I who was a Maccabean, we can consider Herodias, the
granddaughter of Herod the Great, a Maccabean through her grand-
mother. (Herodias' father, Aristobulus, had been excuted by his father,
Herod, in 6 b.c, when the old king, sick and soon to die, had
grown paranoid and was seeing conspiracies everywhere in his com-
plicated family life.)
Herodias married Philip, her half uncle, while Herod Antipas married
the daughter of Aretas, a king of the Nabatean Arabs.
Early in his reign, Herod Antipas tired of his wife and divorced her,
taking, as his second wife, Herodias, who divorced Philip. Herodias had
thus left one half uncle to become the wife of another half uncle.
As a result, Aretas, feeling the rejection of his daughter to be an
insult, declared war on Herod Antipas and defeated him. He achieved
nothing by this, however, except perhaps the soothing of his pride. The
MATTHEW
815
Romans could not allow local wars to get too out-of-hand and they
interfered, allowing Herod Antipas to keep both his tetrarchy and his
new wife.
John the Baptist violently denounced this new marriage as incestuous,
not so much because Herodias was Herod Antipas' half niece, but be-
cause she was his ex-sister-in-law.
Herod Antipas did not allow himself to be driven by this denuncia-
tion into giving up Herodias. Rather, he grew impatient with John the
Baptist. He didn't mind John's theological doctrines— Judea was a land
of constant and complicated theological dispute in those days— but he
did object to any interference with his private life. Besides, he may well
have suspected a political motivation behind the denunciation, and felt
that John was in the pay of the Nabateans, and was attempting to stir
up an internal revolt that would suit the purposes of the still-angry
Aretas.
John was therefore imprisoned by Herod at Machaenis (according
to Josephus ) , a fortified village on the southern border of Perea, east of
the Dead Sea. Herod did not, however, dare take the logical step of
executing John and closing his mouth once and for all, for he feared the
unrest that might follow from John's numerous disciples. John therefore
remained imprisoned for a period of time.
Zabulon and Nephthalim
Matthew sees Jesus' return to Galilee to begin his ministry as
the fulfillment of a prophecy:
Matthew 4:14. That it migfit be fulfilled which was spoken by
Esaias [Isaiah] the prophet, saying,
Matthew 4:15. The land of Zabulon [Zebulon], and the land of
Nephthalim [Naphtali], by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee
of the Gentiles;
Matthew 4:16. The people which sat in darkness saw great light;
and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is
sprung up.
The quotation appears in the Old Testament as:
Isaiah 9:1. Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in
her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of
816
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously
afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the
nations.
Isaiah 9:2. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great
light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them
hath the light shined.
The two verses in Isaiah do not, however, belong together. The first
verse (9:1) belongs to the material in the eighth chapter, in which
Isaiah is talking about the destruction, not long before, of Israel by the
Assyrian forces under Sargon. The second verse (9:2) represents a
complete change of subject and even a shift from prose to poetry. It
starts a coronation hymn which might have been written, originally, to
celebrate the anointing of a new king, possibly Hezekiah (see page
I-423).
In the Hebrew Bible (and in the new Jerusalem Bible as well),
Isaiah 9:1, with its reference to Naphtali and Zebulon, is to be found
as the last verse of the eighth chapter (Isaiah 8:23), while what is
Isaiah 9:2 in the King James Version begins the ninth chapter as
Isaiah 9:1.
This is by far the more logical separation of the two chapters, and the
combination of the two verses in the same chapter was undoubtedly
influenced by their quotation together by Matthew, who was anxious to
make it seem that the reference to the light in darkness referred
particularly to Zebulon and Naphtali so that he might indulge in his
hobby of making as much of Jesus' career as possible seem to have been
predicted by the Old Testament.
The Carpenter's Son
It might be supposed that in returning to Galilee, Jesus would first
of all go back to his own town. If he did, however, he remained there
only a short while, something that Matthew skips over hurriedly:
Matthew 4:12. . . . he [Jesus] departed into Galilee;
Matthew 4:13. And leaving Nazareth . . .
What happened in Nazareth at this time, if anything, Matthew does
not say, but later in the gospel, Matthew does recount the events that
MATTHEW SIT
took place during a (presumably) later visit to Nazareth. These same
events are recounted by Luke as having taken place during a visit
to Nazareth near the start of his ministry, and it is tempting to wonder
if perhaps it did not happen at the very start of that period of his life.
We could suppose, in tracing the "historic Jesus," that, filled with his
new sense of mission, he returned to Nazareth and began to preach
there first of all:
Matthew 13:54. And when he was come into his own country, he
taught them in their synagogue, insomuch tliat they were as-
tonished . . .
But in doing so, he did not please his audience. They remembered
him as a youngster who had grown to manhood in their town, and now
he had the nerve, apparently, to set himself up as a preacher over them.
Matthew quotes the audience as asking, resentfully:
Matthew 13:54. . . . Whence hath this man this wisdom . . .
Matthew 13:55. Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? . . .
Matthew 13:56. . . . Whence then hath this man all these things?
Both Jesus' father and mother are here mentioned, but his father,
Joseph, never appears as a living person anywhere in the New Testa-
ment except in connection with the tales of Jesus' birth. It is usually
assumed, therefore, that he died some time during Jesus' youth.
It would appear from these verses that Joseph was a carpenter, but
what about Jesus? Luke, in telling the same incident, has the audience
ask:
Luke 4:22. ... Is not this Joseph's son?
and there is no mention of carpentering.
Mark, on the other hand— author of the oldest of the gospels-
records the incident and has the audience ask:
Mark 6:3. Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary . . .
Is it possible, then, that the "historic Jesus," before his baptism by
John and his call to the ministry, was a carpenter in Nazareth and that
his townspeople were highly offended that a common laborer with no
theological education (the common people were notoriously unlearned
818 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
in the Pharisaic complications of the Law in those days) should
presume to set himself up as a preacher? And if he displayed knowledge
of the Law, having learned it through intelligence and industry, that
would not alter the fact that as a common laborer he ought to sit in the
audience and listen to his "betters."
Both Luke and Matthew, writing later, when Jesus had grown
mightier in the memory of his disciples, might indeed have felt reluctant
to emphasize Jesus' position as a laborer. Matthew made Joseph the
carpenter (though it is quite possible that father and son were both
carpenters; that Jesus was brought up in his father's trade) while Luke
drops the embarrassing word altogether.
In any case, Jesus assuages his disappointment by a thought similar
to our own "Familiarity breeds contempt."
Matthew 13:57. . . . Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not
without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
The experience seems to have shown Jesus that if his mission were
to be successful, it would have to be some place where he wasn't known
so well that people would let themselves be influenced by the nature of
his earlier trade or the state of his formal education.
Jesus' Brethren
The incident at Nazareth reveals something else about Jesus' family.
The audience ironically recites the names of Jesus' relatives to show
that they are not mistaken, that this upstart preacher is indeed the
lowly carpenter they know and not some visiting dignitary. They men-
tion not only his mother and father, but his brothers and~sisters as well.
Matthew 13:55. Js not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas?
Matthew 13:56. And his sisters, are they not all with us?
If one interpreted these verses in the simplest possible manner, one
would come to the conclusion that the "historic Jesus" was the member
of a large family, and that Joseph and Mary had five sons and several
daughters.
MATTHEW
.SI 9
Even if one were to accept Matthew's tale of the virgin birth of
Jesus, this possibility is not eliminated. He says:
Matthew 1:25. And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had
brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Even if Mary remained a virgin till Jesus' birth, there is nothing in
this verse which would force us to believe that Joseph had no relations
with Mary after the birth of Jesus, and that Mary might not have
borne a number of children in the normal manner who would then
have been younger brothers and sisters to Jesus. One might even argue
that a "firstborn" son implies at least a secondborn son and possibly
others. It would have been easy to say "only son" or even "only child"
if Mary had had no more children.
This picture of a normal home life, of Mary as a multiple mother,
of Jesus with four younger brothers and several younger sisters, is,
however, unacceptable to many Christians who believe firmly in the
tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and reasons have been
advanced to make the apparently clear words of the verse mean other
than they seem to mean.
One theory is that the individuals referred to as the brothers and
sisters of Jesus were actually Joseph's children by a previous marriage
and not the sons of Mary at all. They would then be Jesus' older half
brothers and half sisters. Against that, is the fact that no such earlier
marriage of Joseph is mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
A more tenable theory is that the men were not his brothers but
relatives of another kind— say, cousins. The word "brother" is indeed
used in the Bible to mean, on occasion, "kinsman." Thus Lot is
Abraham's nephew, but:
Genesis 13:8. And Abrarn [ Abraham] said unto Lot, Let there
be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, ... /or we be
brethren.
Again Jacob is La ban's nephew, but:
Genesis 29:15. And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my
brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? . . .
However, in such cases enough genealogical material is usually given
to enable the exact relations of the individuals involved to be worked
820
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
out. This is not so in the case of Jesus' brethren, and those who argue
for a more distant relationship must seek indirect evidence.
Thus, Matthew speaks of several women witnessing the crucifixion:
Matthew 27:56. Among which was . . . Mary the mother of James
and Joses . . .
Names are frequently repeated from family to family, but here we
have a James and Joses who are the sons of Mary. Could these be the
James and Joses mentioned as Jesus' brothers, along with Simon and
Judas, here unmentioned? If so, they must be the sons of another
Mary, for if this Mary were Jesus' mother as well, surely Matthew
would have said so. In that case, who was this other Mary?
In an analogous verse in the gospel of St. John, we have:
John 19:25. Now there stood by the cross of fesus his mother,
and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas . . .
Could it be that the brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are the
sons of Jesus' aunt Mary, rather than of his mother Mary, and are
therefore actually his first cousins?
However, many modem scholars do not seek roundabout explana-
tions but accept Mary, the mother of Jesus, as being the mother of
others as well. Certainly, if we try to trace a "historic Jesus" in whom
the tale of the virgin birth is not involved, there is no reason to question
the fact that he had true brothers and sisters.
Capernaum
Leaving Nazareth, Jesus went to a larger city in Galilee, whert he
might expect more success than in his small home town:
Matthew 4:13. And leaving Nazareth, he [Jesus] came and dwelt
in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast . . .
Capernaum is about twenty miles northeast of Nazareth and, in the
time of Jesus, was an important town with a Roman garrison, a tax-
collection office, and a sizable synagogue. Its Hebrew name was
"Kapharnahum" ("village of Nahum"), which became "Kapharnaoum"
in Greek and "Capernaum" in English.
Despite the fame of Capernaum as the site of Jesus' preaching, it
MATTHEW S21
Early Journeys of Christ
eventually faded away until, in modern times, there was even a dispute
as to its location.
It was located "upon the sea coast" but that does not mean the
Mediterranean Sea, as one might think, but upon the inland lake of
fresh water that is found to the east of Galilee along the upper courses
of the Jordan River.
The lake is pear-shaped with the broad end at the north. It is not
large, only thirteen miles long and seven and a half miles wide at its
broadest point. It has a surface area of only sixty-five square miles
(three times the size of Manhattan Island).
The lake has had a variety of names, all taken from cities or districts
along its western shores. For instance, a very early town near its southern
end was named Chinnereth. It is mentioned in the records of the
conquering Thutmose III of Egypt (see page I-122) long before the
Exodus. It gave its name to the lake and to the western shores of that
lake.
The lake is barely mentioned in the Old Testament, for the centers
of population and power in Israel and Judah lay well to the south.
When it is mentioned at all, it is usually brought in as part of a bound-
ary delineation:
822
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Numbers 34:11. . . . and the border shall descend, and shall reach
unto the side of the sea of Chinnereth eastward . . .
The western shores of the lake are mentioned in connection with a
Syrian invasion of about 900 b.c.
1 Kings 15:20. So Ben-hadad [of Syria] . . . smote . . . Cinneroth
[Chinnereth], with all the land of Naphtali.
Modern Israel still uses the Old Testament name for the lake, calling
it "Yam Kinneret," and on its shores is a town called Kinneret, with a
population of about a thousand.
On the northwestern shores of the lake is a small plain, not more
than two miles each way, where two small rivulets enter it. It was
called Gennosar or Gennesarat, a name of uncertain origin. Perhaps it
means "garden of Hazor," Hazor being the Canaanite ruler of the
region in the time of the judges (see page I-235).
At any rate, that district gave its name to the lake also, and the names
are used in the Bible, the Apocrypha, and in Joscphus. Thus:
1 Maccabees 1 1 -.67. As for Jonathan and his host, they pitched at
the water of Gennesar . . .
and, in the New Testament:
Luke 5:1. ... he [Jesus] stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
In modern Israel a village stands on the northwest shore of the lake.
It has a population of perhaps five hundred and its name is Ginnosar.
After the exodus when the northern reaches that had once made up
the tribal territory of Naphtali and Zebulon became known as Galilee
(see page 64), the lake became known as the Sea of Galilee:
Matthew 4:18. And ]esus, walking by the sea of Galilee . . .
That is perhaps the name by which it is best known to Christians
ever since, but it is not the latest of its names. In Jesus' own time, still
a newer name arose.
The largest and most modem city on the shores of the lake in Jesus'
time was one that was built in a.d. 20 (less than a decade before Jesus
began his ministry) by Herod Antipas. It was named Tiberias after the
Roman Emperor then reigning and Antipas made it his capital. It was
primarily a Gentile city and was looked upon by the Jews with horror,
MATTHEW 823
partly for that reason and partly out of superstition, for it was built on
the site of an ancient cemetery.
The city is mentioned only once in the New Testament, and then
only in the gospel of St. John, the latest and most Greek-oriented of
the gospels:
John 6:23. (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias . . . )
That city, too, gave its name to the sea, a name also found in John:
John 6:1. After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee,
which is the sea of Tiberias.
Tiberias still exists and is still the largest city on the shores of the
lake. It has a population of about twenty-two thousand, and its name
is still affixed to the lake, which is known in Arabic as "Bahr Tabariya"
and in American geographies as "Lake Tiberias."
Simon
In Capernaum, Jesus rapidly attained the success and got the hearing
that he was denied in Nazareth. He even began to collect disciples:
Matthew 4:18. And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw
two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting
a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Matthew 4:19. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will
make you fishers of men.
Matthew 4:20. And they straightway left their nets, and followed
him.
Simeon is the form of the name used in the Old Testament, and in
one place that form is used for Simon Peter:
Acts 15:14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the
Gentiles . . .
There was a strong tendency, however, to shorten it to Simon, since
that happened to be a perfectly good Greek name and there was a
continuing tendency among even conservative Jews in this period to
adopt or be given Greek names.
The Jews did not have our system of surnames and it was customary
824
ASIMOV's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to distinguish an individual from others of the same name by the use
of his father's name. Thus, at one point, Jesus says:
Matthew 16:17. . . . Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona . . .
By Simon Bar-jona is meant, "Simon, son of Jona."
But this too might be insufficient, and it was common to add to a
man's name some nickname drawn from his personal appearance or
character, something that would be highly individual. This was noted in
the case of the sons of Mattathias, the priest who sparked the Macca-
bean rebellion (see page 716) .
Simon, perhaps because ot his size and strength, or because of his
firmness of will, or both, was called, in Aramaic, Simon Cephas (Simon,
the Rock). In Greek, "rock" is "petros" and in Latin it is "petrus."
This becomes "peter" in English and so Simon is frequently referred to
as Simon Peter.
The nickname can be used by itself if it is sufficiently distinctive
and becomes sufficiently well known. Thus, Paul, in his First Epistle to
the Corinthians, denounces the factionalism of the early Church, saying:
1 Corinthians 1:12. . . . every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and
I of Apollos; and I of Cephas . . .
where Cephas is Simon. And we, of course, know him best simply as
Peter.
Andrew is not a name that occurs in the Old Testament. It is the
English version of the Greek "Andreas" meaning "manly." The final
"-ew" in the English version may have been influenced by the form of
Matthew.
Matthew's story makes it seem that Peter and Andrew were simply
called and they followed, unable to help themselves, attracted and
mesmerized by the divine in Jesus. And yet, if we are tracing the
"historic Jesus," it isn't at all unreasonable to assume that Peter and
Andrew first heard him preach, were attracted to his doctrines, and
then joined him.
James
Nor were the brothers, Peter and Andrew, the only disciples gained
in Capernaum. Another pair of brothers were quickly collected:
MATTHEW
825
Matthew 4:21. And going on from thence, he saw other two
brethren, ]ames the son of Zebedee, and ]ohn his brother, in a ship
with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
Matthew 4:22. And they immediately left the ship and their father,
and followed him.
Zebedee, the name of the father of James and John, is the English
version of the Greek "Zebedaios" which is, in turn, derived from the
Hebrew Zebediah. A number of men of that name are mentioned in
the Old Testament but none of importance.
John, son of Zebedee, is the second of the important Johns in the
New Testament, the first being John the Baptist, of course.
James would seem, at first, to be a name distinct from any in the Old
Testament, but that appears so only if we look upon the English version
of the name. It comes from the Greek "Iakhobos" and the Latin
"Jacobus," so that James is clearly equivalent to Jacob.
Decapolis
The fame of Jesus' preaching began to spread widely. In the Jewish
kingdoms of that time, a skillful preacher, learned in the Law and ready
to illustrate his points with interesting tales that pointed an analogy or a
moral ("parables"), was bound to attract attention. Word concerning
him would travel quickly, as one person excitedly told another, and
many would come to see and hear the new attraction. The effect would
be the same as that of a new philosopher in Athens, a new gladiator in
Rome, or a new popular play in New York.
Concerning holy men of all ages, reports of miraculous cures have
always been circulated. This has been true not only of the times before
Jesus, but of the times since. The kings of England, few of whom were
particularly holy, and some of whom were particularly unholy, were
considered capable of curing a disease called scrofula simply by touch-
ing the sick individual; and the monarch touched for the "king's evil"
into the eighteenth century. Even today there are any number of faith-
healers who cure people by the 'laying on of hands." Such is the
complicated nature of disease and the important influence of mental
attitude upon it that a patient who thoroughly believes a certain course
826
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of treatment will help him (even if it is only the casual touch of an
indifferent king or of a backwoods healer) is indeed often helped.
Many tales of cures brought about by Jesus are recorded by the
enthusiastic evangelists, and it is useless to try to suggest naturalistic
explanations for each one. To the believing Christian, all the cures
described are completely possible, having been brought about not by
faith-healing or by a kind of primitive psychiatry, but by the direct
intervention of divine power.
In the search for the "historic Jesus," however, it may be sufficient to
say that many who accepted Jesus as a holy man believed he could help
their illnesses and were indeed helped by him. The tales of his cures
were spread abroad (and were exaggerated in the telling and retelling,
as is invariably and inevitably the case in such situations). Such tales
helped increase his fame further:
Matthew 4:24. And his fame went throughout all Syria . . .
Matthew 4:25. And there followed him great multitudes of people
from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem . . .
The mention of Decapolis ("ten cities") is particularly interesting.
At the time of the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek cities were
planted everywhere that his armies trod; and this tendency continued
under the Macedonian kings who fell heir to his dominions. Under the
Seleucids, the region east of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee
came to be studded with Greek towns.
At the height of the Maccabean monarchy, the area was conquered
by Alexander Jannaeus, but when Pompey marched into Judea and
reorganized the area, the Greek cities were freed. They formed a league
among themselves and in the time of Jesus enjoyed considerable self-
government. The ten cities that formed part of the league are given
differently by different authorities, but apparently the northernmost
was Damascus itself, sixty miles northeast of Capernaum. This is the
same Damascus that had been the capital of the Syrian kingdom
against which Ahab had fought.
If people came from the Decapolis to hear Jesus, they may have
included some Gentiles. This is not specifically stated, but there is
nothing impossible about it. Just as some Jews were strongly attracted
to Greek culture, some Greeks would be strongly attracted to Judaism.
Even if such Greeks stopped short of conversion, they might yet be
sufficiently interested to go hear some outstanding preacher.
MATTHEW
827
In view of the later history of Christianity, the fact that Jesus' preach-
ing may early have spread among Greeks, and Gentiles generally, is of
extreme importance.
The Law
At this point Matthew feels it appropriate to give a sampling of the
doctrines that Jesus was preaching, and that attracted such wide at-
tention. He does so in a sermon covering three chapters. Probably the
passage as given by Matthew is not actually a single sermon spoken at
one time, but is a collection of representative "sayings." The sermon is
introduced thus:
Matthew 5:1. And seeing the multitudes, he [Jesus] went up into
a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
Matthew 5:2. And he opened his mouth, and taught them . . .
In a.d. 394 the Christian bishop St. Augustine wrote a commentary
on this sermon which he entitled "Concerning the Lord's sermon in the
mountain" and since then these chapters of Matthew have been referred
to as "The Sermon on the Mount."
There have been attempts to pick out some particular hill near Caper-
naum on which the sermon might have been delivered, but there seems
no way of reaching a decision.
The Sermon on the Mount, as given in Matthew, is, as is to be
expected, closely tied in with Old Testament teachings. Many phrases
which we associate very strongly with the Sermon and with Jesus'
teachings have close parallels in the Old Testament Thus an often
quoted passage appears in the early verses of the Sermon, verses that
give blessings to various groups of individuals and are therefore called
the "Beatitudes" from the Latin word for "happiness" or "blessedness."
It goes:
Matthew 5:5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Compare this with:
Psalm 37:11. But the meek shall inherit the earth . . .
Indeed, it might be supposed that one of the purposes of Matthew in
recording the Sermon on the Mount is to support a particular point of
view which he represents among the early Christians.
828
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
After Jesus had passed from the scene, his sayings survived only
because they were remembered and repeated by word of mouth. There
is no evidence that Jesus ever put his teachings into permanent written
form.
Oral teaching that must be carried on by word of mouth can give
rise to disputes. There were naturally many sayings quoted by one
listener or another and in some cases a saying might be reported in one
form by one person and in another form by someone else. The sayings
might even be quoted in self-contradictory forms and could be used to
support widely divergent theological points.
Perhaps the most basic of the early splits among Christians was
between those who held the teachings of Jesus to be merely a refinement
of Judaism, and those who held them to be a radical change from
Judaism. The former would maintain the supremacy of the Mosaic Law
even for Christians; the latter would deny it.
Matthew, the most Jewish of the evangelists, apparently believed in
the supremacy of the Law, and in the Sermon on the Mount he
quoted Jesus as being strenuously and unequivocally of that belief:
Matthew 5:17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful-
fUled.
Matthew follows that with another verse which seems aimed by him
directly at the heads of those among the early Christians who took up
the other point of view:
Matthew 5:19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he sliall be called the least
in the kingdom of heaven . . .
This extreme view, as quoted, is strengthened by a consideration of
the meaning of "jot" and "tittle." Jot is the Hebrew letter "yodh,"
the smallest (little more than a fat dot) letter in the Hebrew alphabet.
In Greek the letter is named "iota," and is the smallest in the Greek
alphabet (so that one says "not an iota" meaning "not a bit"). In
English the letter is "i" and it is the smallest in our alphabet.
A tittle is a translation of a Greek word meaning "little hom." It
would be a small mark that would distinguish one Hebrew letter from
MATTHEW
829
another. The equivalent in English would be the small line that dis-
tinguishes a Q from an O.
The Revised Standard Version translates the verse: "For truly, I say
to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass
from the law until all is accomplished." Nothing, in other words, would
change in the Law as a result of Jesus' coming, not even the smallest
particle.
The interpretation of this passage depends on the phrase "till all be
fulfilled." Matthew seems to imply that this is synonymous with "till
heaven and earth pass." Other views are possible, however, and are
stated in the Bible, as we shall see, and it was these other views that
eventually won out.
It may very well be that the "historic Jesus" did indeed hold the
view given here in Matthew, for in the synoptic gospels he is always
pictured— despite his disputes with the Pharisees— as an orthodox Jew,
adhering to all the tenets of Judaism.
Publicans
If anything, Jesus (as represented by Matthew) would strengthen
the Law, rather than weaken it Thus, in the Sermon on the Mount,
Jesus is quoted as preaching the necessity for exceeding the letter of the
Law in matters of morals and ethics. It is not sufficient to refrain from
killing one's fellow man; one must refrain from even being angry
with him, or expressing contempt for him. It is insufficient to refrain
from committing adultery; one must not even allow one's self to enter-
tain lustful feelings. It is insufficient to refrain from swearing false
oaths; one should not swear at all, but simply tell the truth.
Although the Mosaic Law permitted retaliation in kind to personal
injuries, Jesus held it better that there were no retaliation at all. One
should return good for evil. After all, he points out, to return good for
good is easy; that is a natural tendency that affects even the ir-
religious. Those who wish ethical perfection must do more than that:
Matthew 5:46. For if ye love them which love you, what reward
have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
The publicans are held up here as an extreme. If even the publicans
can do this, anyone can. The Greek word used here is "telonai"
830
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
which is translated into the Latin "publicani" and which becomes, in
English, "publicans."
In Rome the publicani were originally the contractors who agreed,
for appropriate payment, to perform public works and services. One
of the most important of these public works and services was to collect
taxes.
It was difficult to collect taxes in a realm the size of the Roman
Empire in a day when modern means of transportation and com-
munication did not exist, and when modern business procedures were
unheard of. The mere fact that Arabic numerals did not exist,
enormously multiplied the difficulties of regulating the Roman
economy.
Roman financial procedures were always inefficient and wasteful and
the burden of this was laid upon the people of the empire, particularly,
in New Testament times, upon the people of the provinces.
The Roman government did not have the organization required to
collect taxes, so what they did was to farm out permission to make
such collections to rich men who had considerable cash available. These
could, for a large sum, buy the right to collect the taxes of a certain
province. The sum they paid would represent the tax collection as far
as the government was concerned. The government would have the
taxes it needed on the spot. It need take no further trouble for it.
The publicani, however, would now have to recoup their payment
out of the taxes they collected, which they could then keep. It was as
"tax collectors" that the people of the provinces best knew the publi-
cani, and the word is translated as "tax collector" in the Revised
Standard Version.
The trouble with this system was that if the publicani, or tax col-
lectors, gathered less than they had paid out, they would suffer a loss,
whereas if they could gouge out more than they had paid, they would
make a profit. The more merciless the gouging, the higher the profit,
so it was to the interest of the publicani to force payment of every
cent they could get by the harshest application of the letter of the Law
as interpreted most favorably to themselves.
No tax collector, however lenient and merciful, is actually going to
be loved, but a "publican" of the Roman sort was sure to be hated
above all men as a merciless leech who would take the shirt off a
dying child. It is not to be wondered at, then, that the word "publi-
MATTHEW 831
can" is used as representing an extreme of wickedness in the Sermon
on the Mount.
Of course, the men to whom Jesus referred were not the publicani
themselves, not the wealthy businessmen in Rome who waxed fat on
the misery of millions. They were merely the army of small employees
who owned the actual outstretched hands and who then passed the
money on to their superiors.
But in a way, these were even worse, for they were usually Jews
who took the job as a means of making a living and, in this fashion,
earned the hatred and contempt of their fellow Jews. There were
numerous Jewish nationalists at this time who felt the Romans to be
oppressors who must be fought against and overthrown in Maccabean
fashion. To endure the presence of the Romans was bad enough, to
pay taxes to them was worse, but to collect taxes for them was the limit
and beyond the limit.
Paternoster
Jesus continues the Sermon on the Mount, denouncing ostentation
in piety. He decries giving alms openly, praying in public, or deliberately
exaggerating one's appearance of suffering while fasting, all in order
to receive admiration and gain a reputation for piety. Jesus points
out that if it is human acclaim that is wanted, then it is received and
that is all the reward that is likely to come.
He also counsels against uselessly long or ritualistic prayers:
Matthew 6:7. . . . when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the
heathen do: for they think that tlxey shall be heard for their much
speaking.
Matthew 6:9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father
which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
and there follows the well-known "Lord's Prayer," so-called because it
is the prayer recited by Jesus himself. In Latin the first words "Our
Father" are "Pater noster," so that the prayer is sometimes called "the
Paternoster."
Ironically enough, in view of Jesus' admonition in Matthew 6:7,
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
it is often customary to repeat the Paternoster a number of times in
a fast, mumbling sort of way— so that the word "patter" for such fast,
mumbling speech is derived from "Paternoster."
Mammon
As is not unusual for preachers who gather their disciples from
among the poor, Jesus had harsh words to say about wealth and the
wealthy. The "historic Jesus" was himself a carpenter, his first four
disciples were fishermen. Undoubtedly it was the poor and unlearned
who followed him, while the aristocracy (the Sadducees) and the in-
telligentsia (the Pharisees) opposed him.
It is not surprising, then, that the gospels, and early Christian teach-
ing in general, had a strong note of the social revolutionary about it.
It may even have been this note that contributed greatly to the gather-
ing of converts in the first couple of centuries after Jesus' death.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus urged less care for gathering the
material riches valued on Earth and more care for the gathering of
the ethical riches valued in heaven. Indeed, to care too much for
Earthly things meant, inevitably, that one would withdraw one's at-
tention from the subtler values of heaven:
Matthew 6:24. No man can serve two masters: . . . Ye cannot
serve God and mammon.
Mammon is, here, an untranslated Aramaic word meaning "wealth."
Because of its use in this manner in this verse, it is very commonly
supposed that mammon is an antithesis of God; that it is the name
of some demon or heathen idol that serves as a god of wealth. Thus,
John Milton, in his Paradise Lost, makes Mammon one of the fallen
angels who followed Satan. In fact, he makes him the most despicable
of the lot, for even in Heaven, before his fall, Milton pictures him as
exclusively concerned with admiring the gold of Heaven's pavement.
It would get the meaning across more efficiently if the phrase were
translated (as in the Jerusalem Bible) as "God and money."
In a way, this represented a shift from early Jewish thought. In the
absence of a hereafter of reward and punishment, it was felt that the
pious were rewarded on earth with wealth, health, and happiness, while
the sinful were punished with impoverishment, sickness, and misery. It
MATTHEW
833
was this thought which sparked the intricate discussion concerning the
attitude of Cod toward good and evil which is found in the Book of
Job (see page 1-474).
With reward and punishment reserved for the next life, the thought
might naturally arise that people who had it "too good" on Earth
would have to suffer for it in the hereafter just to even the score. There
could well be some comfort in this view to those who were poor
and oppressed and the evangelists sometimes quote Jesus in such a way
as to make him appear to support this view.
Placing Cod and mammon in opposition, as in Matthew 6:24, is an
example. An even more extreme example, which virtually damns rich
men merely for being rich, is the familiar verse in which Jesus says:
Matthew 19:24. . . . It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God.
Once Christianity became widespread and popular enough to at-
tract the rich and powerful, much effort had to be expended to explain
away this verse. Thus, for example, it was sometimes pretended that
"Needle's Eye" was the name of a narrow gate through the Jerusalem
walls and that a full laden camel could not pass through until some of
the load was removed. Therefore, the verse could be taken as meaning
that a rich man could get into Heaven only after a suitable portion of
his wealth had been given to charity— or the Church. However, it makes
more sense to accept the verse as meaning just what it seems to mean
—an expression of a savage feeling against the rich on the part of the
poor who made up the early Christian congregations.
The Dogs
Toward the end of the Sermon on the Mount, a verse occurs that
is not connected with what precedes or succeeds, but stands by itself:
Matthew 7:6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither
cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their
feet, and turn again and rend you.
Both dogs and swine were ritually unclean animals which were
scavengers and therefore literally unclean as well. To apply either term
834
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to someone was a matter of high insult— and still is in many cultures.
(Consider the German expletive "Schweinhund" or "pig-dog.")
The question is: What or whom are the dogs and swine being re-
ferred to in this verse? The verse might simply mean that one ought
not to try to teach religious truths to inveterate scoffers or those ut-
terly lost in sin, and yet that scarcely seems to be right. To whom
ought one to teach the truth? To those who already believe?
Jesus himself refutes this, for when he is accused of associating
with sinners, he is quoted as saving:
Matthew 9:12. . . . They that be whole need not a physician, but
they that are sick.
On the other hand, the reference to dogs and pigs may be a quotation
selected by Matthew to support his own view of a Jewish-oriented
Christianity. In other words, he might be saying that one ought not to
make a great effort to spread the teachings of Jesus among the Gentiles.
Perhaps it was Matthew's view that there was too great a danger of the
Gentiles being offended by efforts at proselytizarion and indulging in
forceful persecution of the Christians; they would "turn again and rend
you" as, in fact, they actually did on occasion. He might also feel that
those Gentiles who accepted Christianity without knowledge of the
Mosaic Law would pervert the teachings of Jesus; they would "trample
them under their feet."
That all this might indeed be so is supported by another passage in
Matthew where the matter is stated quite plainly and where the mean-
ing of the word "dog" is unmistakable.
During a stay north of Galilee, Jesus is accosted by a Canaanite
woman who requests him to heal her sick daughter.
At first, Jesus does not answer her at all, but when she persists:
Matthew 15:24. . . . he answered and said, I am not sent but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:26. . . . It is not meet to take the children's bread,
and to cast it to dogs.
Here Matthew clearly presents his version of a Jesus whose business
lies entirely within the boundaries of Jewish nationalism. (To be sure,
these verses are not the end of this particular passage; more of that
shortly.) Furthermore the antithesis of "children" and "dogs" is
MATTHEW 835
clearly meant to represent that of "Jews" and "Gentiles." This shows
a strong anti-Gentile bias on the part of some of the early Jewish
Christians; a bias which, as we shall see in later gospels, was amply
returned by some of the early Gentile Christians.
This view of Jesus' teachings— as pictured by Matthew— is also
shown when Jesus' disciples are sent out to spread those teachings. They
receive clear instructions:
Matthew 10:5. . . . Jesus . . . commanded them, saying, Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not:
Matthew 10:6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.
The Centurion
And yet Matthew could not possibly present the situation too nar-
rowly. At the time that the gospel was written, it was quite clear that
most Jews were resolutely rqecting the Messiah-hood of Jesus and would
never accept it, whereas a surprising number of Gentiles were asking
admittance. Christianity could not close the door upon the Gentile or
it would die. Even Matthew saw that.
He therefore pictures the Gentile as allowed to enter but, it must
be said, sometimes does so rather grudgingly. Thus, consider again the
case of the Canaanite woman who accosts Jesus with a request to heal
her daughter and is told that the children's food is not to be cast to
dogs. She accepts the analogy submissively:
Matthew 15:27. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of
the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Whereupon Jesus accepts the justice of the remark (one might al-
most consider it a gentle reproof) and heals the woman's daughter.
According to Matthew's view here, it would seem, the Gentile is
accepted, if he enters humbly, with full knowledge of his inferior status.
A less grudging attitude is evidenced by an incident related of
Jesus immediately after the Sermon on the Mount, one that not only
welcomes Gentiles, but warns obdurate Jews.
Matthew 8:5. . . . when fesus was entered into Capernaum, there
came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
836
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew 8:6. And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of
the palsy . . .
A centurion was an officer who commanded a hundred men, and
the word is derived from the Latin "centum" meaning "a hundred
men." He would be equivalent to a noncommissioned officer in our
army. It is uncertain in this case whether the centurion was actually
a member of the occupying Roman army or in the forces of Herod
Antipas. In either case, he was not Jewish.
The centurion begs Jesus not to bother coming personally, but to
say the healing word from a distance. Jesus does as the centurion
asks, saying:
Matthew 8:10. ... I have not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel.
Matthew 8:11. And I say unto you, That many shall come from
the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac,
and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 8:12. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out
into outer darkness . . .
Matthew considers Jesus' miracles of healing to bear out an Old
Testament prophecy:
Matthew 8:17. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
Esaias [Isaiah] the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities,
and bare our sicknesses.
This is from a verse in Second Isaiah in which the prophet describes
the suffering servant (see page 1-551) :
Isaiah 53:4. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sor-
rows . . .
The Son of Man
Jesus is pictured in the synoptic gospels as careful, during this
early part of his ministry, to avoid arousing the suspicion of the author-
ities with respect to his Messianic status. Both the religious and secular
leaders would strike quickly at those they considered were falsely
MATTHEW
837
claiming to be the Messiah, since such false Messiahs would stir up
revolts and do much damage.
Even if Jesus himself were discreet, his growing popularity might
cause those who followed him to proclaim him the Messiah in too
incautious a fashion, and this, apparently, he wished to avoid. He is
therefore described as preferring that his miraculous cures not be too
widely publicized. Thus, after curing a leper:
Matthew 8:4. .. . Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man;
but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that
Moses commanded . . .
In other words, the cured leper is to have himself declared ritually
clean according to the Mosaic system, but he is not to say how it
came about. Jesus showed the same discretion in references to himself.
Thus, when a scribe offered to become his disciple, Jesus points out the
hardships involved:
Matthew 8:20. And fesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes,
and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not
where to lay his head.
The phrase "Son of man" is a common way of saying simply "man."
It is frequently used in the Book of Ezekiel, when God is quoted
as addressing the prophet:
Ezekiel 2:1. And he [God] said unto me, Son of man, stand upon
thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.
The phrase seems to emphasize the lowliness of man as compared
to God; the infinite inferiority of the former to the latter. It is as though
God addressed a man as "Mortal!"
Outside of Ezekiel, the phrase does not appear in the Old Testament
except in the very late Book of Daniel. There it is used in one case
precisely as in Ezekiel, when the angel Gabriel speaks to Daniel:
Daniel 8:17. . . . he [Gabriel] said unto me, Understand, O son
of man . . .
But in the second place, Daniel is describing an apocalyptic vision
(see page I-610) :
Daniel 7:13. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like
the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, . . .
838
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Daniel 7:14. And there was given him . . . an everlasting domin-
ion . . . and his kingdom . . . shall not be destroyed.
Daniel had previously symbolized a variety of heathen nations op-
pressing Israel in the form of wild beasts; now he symbolized the ideal
kingdom of a Messianic Israel in the form of a man, to show its
greater worth. "One like the Son of man" can be paraphrased, "a
figure in the shape of a man."
Because of this one passage, however, the phrase "son of man"
came to be used as a metaphoric way of speaking of the Messiah.
Perhaps this was useful at times when it was dangerous to be too openly
Messianic in one's hopes. By speaking of the "son of man" one could in-
dicate the Messiah to those who were in sympathy; but before a judge
one might maintain that the phrase meant simply "man."
Jesus is quoted as referring to himself in this fashion on a number
of occasions. It is, indeed, the most frequent title he gives himself. We
might picture the "historic Jesus" as pleased by his own success and
beginning to think that his mission might be a great one indeed.
Cautiously he could begin to refer to himself as "son of man," a Mes-
sianic title which could always be defended as a form of humility
used after the fashion of Ezekiel.
Gergesenes
Jesus' successes at Capernaum encouraged him, apparently, to try
to extend his work beyond Galilee:
Matthew 8:18. Now when ]esus saw great multitudes about him,
he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
By "the other side" is meant, of course, the eastern shore of the
Sea of Galilee. This eastern shore was outside the tetrarchy of Galilee
and was, rather, part of the Decapolis.
Matthew 8:28. And when he was come to the other side into the
country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with
devils . . .
"Gergesenes" is apparently a copyist's error, as is the version
"Gadarenes" which appears elsewhere in the gospels. The best version
MATTHEW 839
would be "Gerasenes," for the reference seems to be to a Greek town
named Gerasa, a place which has been identified with the present vil-
lage of Kersa on the east shore of Lake Tiberias, five miles across the
water from Capemaum.
Jesus is described as casting out the demons who, at their own re-
quest, are transferred into a herd of swine who then dash into the Sea
of Galilee and are drowned.
The Greek inhabitants of the place seemed unappreciative of this
invasion of a prophet from Galilee and of the disturbances his
revivalist preaching seemed to bring.
Matthew 8:34. . . . the whole city came out to meet Jesus:
and . . . besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
The Twelve Apostles
The increasing numbers of those who flocked to him seem to have
convinced Jesus that he would have to place more of the responsibility
upon those among his disciples whom he considered most trustworthy
and capable. (Perhaps he attributed the failure of his mission to
Gerasa to the fact that the work he was attempting was too great
for him to attend to properly, preventing him from achieving com-
pletely satisfactory results.) He therefore appointed deputies:
Matthew 10:1. ... he . . . called unto him his twelve disciples
[and] . . . gave them power against unclean spirits . . .
Matthew 10:2. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these;
the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James
the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Matthew 10:3. Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew
the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose sur-
name was Thaddaeus . . .
Of these ten, the calls of five— Peter, Andrew, James, John, and
Matthew— were mentioned specifically. The others are here named
for the first time.
The word "apostle" is from the Greek "apostolos" meaning "one
who is sent away." In the New Testament it means, specifically, one
840
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
who is sent away to preach, as now Jesus is sending away his disciples
to do. The word "missionaiy" (one who is sent forth on a mission) is
exactly synonymous.
The word is most frequently applied to the twelve men appointed
by Jesus, but it can be used for any missionary. In fact, the most famous
apostle is none of these twelve, but Paul who did not take up his mis-
sion till after Jesus' death, and who never saw Jesus during the latter's
lifetime.
Simon the Canaanite
The eleventh name to be included is a rather startling one:
Matthew 10:4. Simon the Canaanite . . .
Can there be a Canaanite among the apostles?
Actually, the word is a mistranslation of the Greek "Kananaios."
It should be "Simon the Cananaean" and is so given in the Revised
Standard Version. A Cananaean has nothing to do with Canaan but
comes from an Aramaic word "kannai" meaning "a zealous one."
In Luke this is made clearer, for in his list of apostles we have:
Luke 6:15. Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus,
and Simon called Zelotes . . .
In the Revised Standard Version, this phrase is given as "Simon who
was called the Zealot."
The Zealots, mentioned in the Bible only on this occasion, made up
an important and even fateful party among the Jews of Roman times.
They were that branch of the Pharisees who demanded action against
the Romans. Where the Pharisees, generally, were inclined to suffer
foreign domination patiently as long as their religious views were
respected, the Zealots were not.
They slowly gained power in Judea and Galilee and eventually their
belligerency and intransigence, combined with Roman rapacity, forced
the Jewish revolt in 66 b.c. The Zealots held out with a kind of super-
human obstinacy that forced the war to drag on for three years and
killed off those same Zealots virtually to the last man.
MATTHEW
841
]udas Iscariot
Just as Simon Peter is invariably placed first in all the lists of the
apostles, Judas Iscariot is always placed last since it is he who, in the
end, betrays Jesus:
Matthew 10:4. . . . Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Usually the word "Iscariot" is taken to mean "man of Kerioth."
Kerioth, a city in Judea proper, is listed in the Book of Joshua among
the cities in the territory assigned to Judah:
Joshua 15:25. And Hazor, Hadattah, and Kerioth . . .
It is often stated, then, that Judas was the only Judean in an as-
semblage of Galileans. One would then be entitled to wonder whether
the feeling of being an "outsider" did not play a part in the eventual
betrayal.
Actually, though, there is no indication anywhere in the gospels that
Judas was a Judean rather than a Galilean— except for this very
doubtful interpretation of the word "Iscariot." Actually, a more recent
and much more interesting interpretation is that the word "Iscariot"
arose out of a copyist's transposition of two letters and that it should
more accurately be "Sicariot." If so, Judas would be a Galilean like
all the other apostles, chosen by Jesus from the local citizens of
Capernaum and environs.
But then, what is "Sicariot"? This can be someone who is a member
of the party of the "Sicarii." These were so called from a Greek word
meaning "assassins" because it refers to men carrying little knives,
"sicae," under their robes. This was the name given to the most extreme
Zealots who believed in outright assassination of Romans and pro-
Romans as the most direct and effective means of fighting foreign
domination.
Judas Iscariot might be called "Judas the Terrorist," and if we ac-
cept this version of the meaning of the name it helps give a useful
interpretation to events in the career of the "historic Jesus."
842
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Samaritans
Jesus sends the apostles to the Israelites only (see page 835) :
Matthew 10:5. . . . Co not into the way of the Gentiles, and
into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not . . .
The Samaritans, who had established themselves as a distinct sect
at the time the returning Jews had refused to allow them a share in
the Second Temple (see page I-441), still survived. (In fact, a small
number of them survive down to this very day.)
For a while, after the return from exile, the Jews and Samaritans
progressed in parallel fashion. Under the Persians, both lived in peace
and were protected from each other. To match the Jewish temple in
Jerusalem, the Samaritans built one on their sacred Mount Gerizim
(see page I-203) in 332 b.c. Both were persecuted by Antiochus IV and
both the Jewish and the Samaritan temples were profaned.
After the Maccabean revolt, however, matters changed. Now the
Jews were dominant. The Macca beans conquered Samaria and, in 129
b.c, John Hyrcanus I destroyed the Samaritan temple.
The Samaritans survived the destruction of their temple and clung
stubbornly to their beliefs (just as the Jews had). When the Romans
established control over Judea, the Samaritans were liberated and al-
lowed the free exercise of their religion. This was good policy for the
Romans, who weakened the Jews by establishing an enemy in their
midst and these made both of them easier to rule.
In New Testament times the hatred between Jew and Samaritan was
particularly intense, as hatred often is between peoples with similar but
not identical views, with histories of having inflicted wrongs upon
each other. This hatred plays an important role in a number of gospel
passages, as, for instance, in the one quoted above in which Samaritans
are classed with Gentiles.
The Disciples of John
But Jesus' successes were attracting the attention not only of the
plain people who came to heai him or to follow him, but also of
many religious leaders.
MATTHEW 843
For one thing, he attracted the attention of John the Baptist. John
was in prison, of course, but his disciples were active. His disciples
may even have looked with impatience and disapproval upon this new
leader who, it might have seemed to them, was merely trying to strut
in the borrowed feathers of their imprisoned leader.
They were ready to find faults and shortcomings in Jesus and his
teachings and they picked on his greatest weakness (at least in the eyes
of the orthodox of the times). That was his failure to adhere to the
letter of the Law and the tradition, let alone go beyond it as a sign of
particularly exemplary piety.
Matthew 9:14. Then came to him the disciples of John, saying,
Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not.
Jesus answered by pointing out that while he was present with
his disciples they had cause for rejoicing and therefore did not fast
(fasting being a sign of mourning).
Perhaps this explanation was brought to John the Baptist, who
pondered on the possible Messianic significance of such a reply. John
had declared himself to be the immediate forerunner of the Messiah
and, now that he was imprisoned, he must have been certain that the
Messiah would momentarily appear. One could imagine him respond-
ing eagerly to any news that might be interpreted as Messianic and
Jesus' suggestion that his very presence was cause for rejoicing might
be significant. Could he be the Messiah?
Matthew 11:2. . . . John . . . sent two of his disciples,
Matthew 11:3. And said unto him [Jesus], Art thou he that should
come, or do we look for another?
Jesus asked that the tales of his achievement be brought back to
John, but he does not directly and specifically claim to be the Mes-
siah.
The Pharisees
But John was in prison and even if he and his disciples refused to
accept Jesus or were actively displeased with him, the harm they could
do was small. Much more dangerous were the Pharisees, especially
those among them who were entirely given over to the belief that
844
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
salvation lay in the meticulous observation of all the precepts of the
Law as interpreted in the most stringent manner. (The scribes, too,
as students of the Law— see page I-450— tended to be wedded rather
inflexibly to ritual. For this reason, the scribes and the Pharisees are
often coupled in the gospels, as groups who separately and together
opposed Jesus.)
Not all the Pharisees were like this, by any means, and at their
best (see page 807) Pharisaic teachings were very like those in the New
Testament. However, there were Pharisees whose regard for the
minutiae of ritual was superstitious in intensity, or who actually wel-
comed the fact that so few people had the time, inclination, or learn-
ing to uphold the ritual to the last degree. When this was so, the few
who could (these Pharisees themselves) might feel smugly superior to
all the rest.
In a parable quoted in Luke, Jesus himself describes such a Pharisee,
as praying after that fashion:
Luke 18:11. . . . Cod, I thank thee, that I am not as other men
are . . .
Of course, it sometimes happens that people who behave with great
affectation of sanctity don't always live up to the ideals they profess.
And it also happens that those who smart under the snubs of another's
self-consciously superior sanctity rejoice in any shortcomings they dis-
cover in that sanctity. There is a tendency, therefore, to find some
scribes and Pharisees to be hypocrites as well, and all three words are
found together in various places in the gospels.
Indeed, in our own language, the word "pharisaical" is applied to a
self-conscious and hypocritical sanctimoniousness.
While all this was undoubtedly true of some Pharisees, it was cer-
tainly not true of all. But it was the more narrow Pharisees who
particularly opposed Jesus that were identified as the Pharisees— with
no indication that there was any other kind— by the naturally hostile
evangelists.
As Jesus' fame grew, then, the attention of the scribes and Pharisees
was attracted, and they disapproved. Social prejudice may well have
been involved. After all, Jesus was merely an unlearned carpenter from
some small town.
This could not very well be used as an open argument against him,
but it would predispose the scribes and Pharisees (proud of their
MATTHEW
845
learning) against him. They would then be all the readier to find
fault with his laxity in observing ritual.
Thus, in treating a sick man, Jesus said:
Matthew 9:2. . . . Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven
thee.
Matthew 9:3. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within
themselves, This man blasphemeth.
After all, only God could forgive sins, so that Jesus seemed to be
arrogating to himself Messianic, if not actually divine, powers.
Jesus also seemed to have no hesitation about subjecting himself
to the social stigma of associating with disreputable people, including
even publicans (see page 829) . He actually accepted a publican as a
disciple:
Matthew 9:9. . . . Jesus . . . saw a man, named Matthew, sitting
at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And
he arose, and followed him.
The Pharisees, conscious of their own strict rectitude, questioned
this disapprovingly.
Matthew 9:11. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto
his [Jesus'] disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and
sinners?
Jesus pointed out in response that it was not the letter of the Law
that was demanded by God and not correct ritual. What was demanded
was ethical behavior.
Matthew 9:12. . . • Jesus . . . said unto them, . . .
Matthew 9:13. ... go ye and learn what that meaneth, I wUl
have mercy, and not sacrifice . . .
The quotation is from the prophet Hosea, who quotes God as making
the same point:
Hosea 6:6. For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowl-
edge of God more than burnt offerings.
The Pharisees could not very well deny the quotation or disown
Hosea, but their disposition could scarcely be improved at having a
"backwoods preacher" reading them lessons from the Scriptures.
Antagonism continued to grow.
846
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Sabbath
What seems to have been the final break with the Pharisees arose
over the question of Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath:
Matthew 12:1. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day
through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began
to pluck the ears of com, and to eat.
Matthew 12:2. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him,
Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the
sabbath day.
The origin of the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, as a holy
day to be devoted to God, is, according to Hebrew legend, placed in
the epoch of the creation. God is described as creating the heaven and
the earth in six days:
Genesis 2:2. And on the seventh day God ended his work . . . and
he rested . . .
Genesis 2:3. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it . . .
The name "Sabbath" is derived from a Hebrew word meaning "to
break off" or "to desist." The worldly purpose of the Sabbath was to
desist from work one day a week, to rest; as God had rested from His
work.
Observance of the Sabbath was made one of the Ten Command-
ments received by Moses at Mount Sinai:
Exodus 20:8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exodus 20:9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exodus 20:10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work . . .
But the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, reached its final
written form only during the Babylonian Exile, and it was not till then,
perhaps, that the Sabbath received its present significance. There are,
after all, but few and inconsiderable mentions of the Sabbath in the
historical books dealing with the period before the Exile. It is not
mentioned in the Psalms, in the Proverbs, or in the Book of Job. It is
MATTHEW 847
not mentioned in Deuteronomy, except for its listing in the Ten Com-
mandments.
There is speculation that the Sabbath originated among the Baby-
lonians as a full moon festival. The Babylonians called the fifteenth
day of the month "sappatu," and in a lunar month that begins with the
new moon the fifteenth day is the full moon.
The possibility that the Sabbath was a full moon festival com-
plementary to the well-known new moon festival might be argued from
various Biblical verses dated from before the Exile, verses in which the
new moon and the Sabbath are mentioned together in complementary
fashion.
Thus, when a woman wished to go to the wonder-working prophet
Elisha after her son had died of sunstroke, her husband said to her:
2 Kings 4:23. . . . Wherefore wUt thou go to him to day? it is
neither new moon, nor sabbath.
The prophet Hosea quotes God as threatening Israel:
Hosea 2:11. 1 wUl also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days,
her new moons, and her sabbaths . . •
And Amos, characterizing the greediness of the merchants, eager to
make unfair profits with false weights, pictures them sarcastically, with
the parallelism characteristic of Hebrew poetry:
Amos 8:5. . . . When will the new moon be gone, that we may
sell com? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat . . .
It may be that the Sabbath became more than just another lunar
festival during the Exile, when the priests and scribes sought for ways to
mark off Jewish thinking and keep Judaism alive. They would want to
prevent the assimilation that had caused the men of the Northern
Kingdom of Israel to disappear in the course of their Assyrian exile.
Ezekiel ("the father of Judaism") may have made the significant
contribution of making observance of the Sabbath part of the funda-
mental contract between God and Israel, for Ezekiel quotes God as
saying:
Ezekiel 20:12. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign
between me and them . . .
848
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
By the time of the return from Exile, the Sabbath had definitely
taken on the connotation it has borne among Jews ever since. Nehe-
miah, visiting the restored Jerusalem, is horrified at seeing work done on
the Sabbath:
Nehemiah 13:1;. In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine
presses on the sabbath . . .
Nehemiah 13:16. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which
brought fish, . . . and sold on the sabbath unto the children of
Judah . . .
Nehemiah 13:17. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and
said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the
sabbath day?
Increasing numbers of restrictions hedged about the Sabbath until, by
the time of the Seleucid persecution, the observation of the Sabbath
had become, among the conservative faction, the very touchstone
separating the orthodox Jews from the Hellenizers. Indeed, the orthodox
Assideans would not violate the Sabbath even to save their lives (see
page 7 1 8). The Maccabees had to arrange a general understanding to
allow at least self-defense on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the more ritual-
istic factions among the Jews, and that included certain groups of
Pharisees in particular, were particularly rigid about Sabbath behavior.
Jesus' disciples, by plucking ears of grain, removing the hulls, and
eating the kernels, were involved in a form of harvesting and that was
expressly forbidden on a Sabbath:
Exodus 34:21. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day
thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
Jesus' attitude, however, was one of scorn for legalistic positions that
exalted the Sabbath at the expense of humanitarian considerations, a
view expressed most succinctly in the Gospel of St. Mark:
Mark 2:27. And he [Jesus] said unto them [the Pharisees], The
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath . . .
Jesus' Mother and Brethren
To the Pharisees, it must have seemed that Jesus was aiming to break
down the very core of Judaism; the careful ritual that preserved it (as
MATTHEW
S49
though in amber) from the overwhelming numbers of the hostile out-
side world. Jesus had to be stopped.
Matthew 12:14. Then the Pharisees . . . held a council against
him [Jesus], how they might destroy him.
Presumably what the Pharisees wish to do is destroy his influence;
matters have not yet reached the stage where it would seem necessary to
bring about his death. Apparently, the strategy decided upon by the
Pharisees is to accuse him of black magic:
Matthew 12:24. . . . they [the Pharisees] said, This fellow doth
not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Jesus countered that by demanding to know how one devil could be
made to cast out another, since such a civil war in the ranks of devildom
would destroy them all:
Matthew 12:25. . . . Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself
shall not stand . . .
Nevertheless, there may well have been a falling away of his followers.
Many must have felt that if the learned Pharisees tabbed a man as a
demon-worshipper, they must know what they were talking about.
Indeed, it could well be argued that his family, too, was disturbed
at this. Undoubtedly, word of Jesus' successes must have been coming
back to Nazareth and the family would naturally be pleased. Once evil
reports started reaching them, however, they would be quite justified in
fearing for his safety— and they went in search of him.
At least it is at just about this point that Matthew mentions their
coming:
Matthew 12:46. While he [Jesus] yet talked to the people, behold,
his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Were they come to urge him to return home with them? Were they
hoping to persuade him to abandon his mission before incalculable
harm came to him?
Matthew doesn't say, but Mark's version of this same incident is
preceded (over not too great a distance) by what might well be
considered a most significant passage:
850
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Mark 3:21. . . . his friends . . . went out to lay hold on him:
for they said, He is beside himself.
The word here translated as "friends" could mean "kinsfolk," and,
indeed, the Jerusalem Bible says "his relatives" rather than "his friends."
This verse in Mark is not embarrassing for that evangelist. He
makes no mention of Jesus' virgin birth or of the miracles attendant
thereon, so he has no reason to suppose that Jesus' mother and
brethren should more readily have faith in him than anyone else.
Matthew's account of the virgin birth, however, and of the unusual
events accompanying it— the worship of the kings, Herod's search for the
baby, the warning dream— present a situation in which Jesus' mother
and, probably, other kinsmen as well couldn't help but have at least a
strong suspicion of Jesus' Messianic mission. Matthew, therefore,
couldn't very well include the verse about Jesus' relatives thinking he
was out of his mind, without being inconsistent, so he omits it.
Nevertheless, if we are following the "historic Jesus" we are strongly
tempted to believe that Jesus' family did fear for him and did come to
take him home where they might keep him safe and sane. Matthew's
account of Jesus' reaction to the coming of his relatives could, it might
be argued, lend this view credence. If his mother and brothers had
come for an ordinary friendly visit, surely Jesus would gladly have seen
them and spoken to them. If, however, Jesus suspected they were
coming to dissuade him from his mission, and if he placed his mission
even above family ties, he would naturally react just as Matthew de-
scribes:
Matthew 12:49. . . . he [Jesus] stretched forth his hand toward
his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethrenl
Apparently, he refuses to see his family and, as a matter of fact, his
family does not appear again in the remainder of Matthew. (They are
mentioned a chapter later in the account of Jesus' failure to impress the
people of Nazareth— but they do not appear.)
Parables
In the gospels, Jesus is often described as making his points by means
of parables (from a Greek word meaning "comparison"). These are
MATTHEW
851
short tales which could be taken literally at face value, or could be
compared point by point with an analogous message concerning the
relationship of God and man.
And it is immediately after the account of the visit of Jesus' mother
and brothers that Matthew chooses to present a collection of such
parables:
Matthew 13:3. And he [Jesus] spake many thing? unto them
[his audience] in parables . . .
It is possible, of course, to miss the point of a parable and the
disciples of Jesus are pictured as puzzled when their master seemed
deliberately to remain parabolic and to refrain from plain speaking:
Matthew 13:10. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why
speakest thou unto them in parables?
The explanation given is that the very murlriness of the parables acts
to sift the hearts of men. Those who honestly want to enter the
kingdom will make the effort to understand, while those who are in-
sufficiently eager will not do so.
It is possible to interpret this, however, as a rational response to the
gathering force of Jesus' enemies. For Jesus to speak directly concerning
his unorthodox religious views might further enrage the Pharisees and
perhaps even bring down upon his head political dangers. By speaking
in parables, those unsympathetic to him could be fobbed off with the
literal tale (ifs just a story about a man planting wheat) while those
who sympathized with Jesus would have no trouble seeing the point.
The Daughter of Herodias
And there was good reason for Jesus to speak cautiously and in
parables, for dangers even beyond the Pharisees were lowering upon
him. John the Baptist was deadl
Herod Antipas had hesitated to execute John, for fear of the political
complications that might follow as a result of the anger and resentment
of those who followed him. The vindictive Herodias, however, on
whom the weight of John's denunciation had rested (see page 815) ,
maneuvered Herod into a rash vow.
852
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew 14:6. . . . When Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter
of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.
Matthew 14:7. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her
whatsoever she would ask.
Matthew 14:8. And she, being before instructed of her mother,
said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.
Matthew 14:9. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's
sake ... he commanded it to be given her.
Matthew 14:10. And he sent, and beheaded ]ohn in the prison.
The girl who danced was Herodias' daughter by Philip, her first
husband. She is not named in the Bible, but her name is given in the
writings of Josephus as Salome (a feminine version of Solomon).
To complete the complexities of the Herodian family arrangement,
this Salome later married her half great-uncle, Philip the tetrarch, so
that she was at one and the same time the half great-niece, the step-
daughter, and the half sister-in-law of Herod Antipas— and, through
her mother, a descendant of the Maccabees as well.
Bethsaida
The death of John the Baptist did not result in serious trouble, after
all, for Herod Antipas. Probably he gained courage from this fact and
grew the more ready to take a stern stand against troublesome reformers.
To him, Jesus seemed merely another John the Baptist.
Matthew 14:1. . . . Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of ]esus,
Matthew 14:2. And said unto his servants, This is John the
Baptist; he is risen from the dead . . .
Presumably, since Herod Antipas had had no repercussions from his
execution of John, he would not hesitate to imprison and execute the
new prophet who had stepped into John's shoes. Jesus decided not to
give Herod Antipas the chance to do this.
Matthew 14:13. When ]esus heard of it, he departed thence by
ship into a desert place apart . . .
Luke, in telling this incident, is more specific:
MATTHEW 853
Luke 9:10. . . . And he . . . went aside privately into a desert
place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.
By a desert place is meant a lonely place, an unfrequented one.
Bethsaida ("house of the fishers") is located just north of the Sea of
Galilee, to the east of the place where the Jordan River enters. Since
the Jordan River is the eastern boundary of Galilee, Bethsaida is not in
Galilee but in Iturea. Thus, Jesus places himself outside the jurisdiction
The Galilee Mission
854
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of Herod Antipas, and within that of the mild Philip the tetrarch
from whom no violence was to be feared.
Bethsaida had been rebuilt by Philip the tetrarch about a quarter
century before Jesus had begun his ministry and it had been renamed
Julias, in honor of Julia, daughter of the then-reigning Roman Emperor.
Matthew tells of crowds following Jesus to his place of retreat and
of numerous miracles which he performed. In particular, he tells of
Jesus feeding five thousand men plus an indefinite number of women
and children on five loaves and two fish, miraculously multiplied.
This miracle of feeding the multitude is quite unique for it is
the only miracle that is described in similar terms in all four gospels.
But even if we discount miracles, we can suppose that Jesus con-
tinued to preach in Bethsaida and gathered crowds of both the pious
and the curiosity-seekers.
Perhaps Herod Antipas, chagrined at having Jesus slip out of his
grasp, demanded that his brother Philip return the fugitive. And
perhaps Philip, unwilling to do so, merely sent word to Jesus, sug-
gesting he move on. Whatever the reason, Jesus did not stay in
Bethsaida long.
Matthew 15:39. And he sent away the multitude, and took ship . . .
That sounds as though he recrossed the Sea of Galilee and returned
to the dominions of Herod Antipas. If he did, it was merely to
accomplish some purpose before moving onward again, for soon he
is to be back in Iturea.
Jesus may well have felt defeated at this time. The populace
had not risen in defense of John the Baptist, or to avenge him,
either. They had flocked to Jesus in numbers, but when things
grew hard they fell away. They did not gather about him to protect
him from the Pharisees and from Herod. Instead, he had to go into
flight.
It may have seemed to him at this point that his entire Galilee
mission was a failure as his initial attempt in Nazareth had been.
He had lasted longer in Capernaum and had had enormous, if
temporary, success— but in the end he had been driven out.
Possibly, it was now that he uttered a bitter denunciation of the
cities in which he had been preaching:
Matthew 11:20. Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein
most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
MATTHEW
85S
Matthew 11:21. . . . woe unto thee, Bethsaidal . . .
Matthew 11:22. . . . It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and
Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
Matthew 11:23. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto
heaven, shalt be brought down to hell . . .
Caesarea Philippi
Jesus, on leaving Bethsaida, must have felt himself abandoned. Only
a group of his most faithful disciples were with him and he had left
the scene of his Galilean triumphs far behind.
Matthew 16:13. ... Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea
Philippi . . .
Caesarea Philippi was an Iturean city some thirty miles north
of the Sea of Galilee. The town had grown in importance in Herodian
times. Herod the Great had built a temple there and his son,
Philip the tetrarch, had enlarged the city and renamed it Caesarea
in honor of the family name of the Roman Emperor.
Since there were many Caesareas in the empire, this one was
called Caesarea Philippi ("Philip's Caesarea") by way of identification.
Peter
Perhaps Jesus was seriously questioning the nature of his mission
now that he found himself driven far from home. Was it a failure?
Had the call he had felt on the day of his baptism by John been
an illusion? He turns to his disciples:
Matthew 16:13. .. . Whom do men say that I the Son of man
am?
In response to Jesus' question, the disciples told him that various
people thought he was John the Baptist risen from the dead, or
that he was Elijah or Jeremiah or some other prophet of the past.
But Jesus pressed on. That was the opinion of those who had been
casually exposed to him. What about the disciples themselves, who by
now knew him very well?
§56 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew 16:15. . . . But whom say ye that I am?
Matthew 16:16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
This is the turning point of the gospel. Jesus greeted the assurance
joyfully. After all, Peter's confidence in his Messiah-hood could not
come from his mission's worldly success, which was, at the moment,
nonexistent. It could only be inspired by heaven.
Matthew 16:17. And Jesus answered . . . Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but
my Father which is in heaven.
It was on this assurance of faith and confidence on the part
of his disciples that Jesus felt he could continue and carry on to
final success. In return for Peter's avowal, Jesus could appoint him
"second in command," so to speak, and his successor:
Matthew 16:18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven . . .
Jesus was punning here. Since "Peter" means "rock," he was saying:
"You are Rock and on this rock . . ."
It was the most influential pun in all history. Peter, according to
tradition, went to Rome in later life and became the first Bishop
of Rome. It was believed that succeeding Bishops of Rome inherited
this role as the rock upon which the Church was built and each
continued to hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
It was the Bishop of Rome who came to be called the Pope
(from the word "papa," a general term for priests) and thus began the
doctrine of papal supremacy over the Church, and through the Church
over all Christians. Not all Christians accepted this doctrine and there
are still hundreds of millions who don't today— but there are also
hundreds of millions who do.
Nevertheless, although Jesus now accepted the role of Messiah-
hood, he did not lose all sense of Caution:
MATTHEW
857
Matthew 16:20. Then charged he his disciples that they should
tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Moses and Elias
The acceptance of Messiah-hood by Jesus and, on his behalf, by
the disciples is then placed in miraculous terms. Jesus is described
as taking his chief disciples, Peter, James, and John, to a high
mountain —
Matthew 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face
did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Matthew 17:3. And, behold, there appeared unto them [the
disciples] Moses and Elias [Elijah] talking with him [Jesus].
Then, too, it was unthinkable to the evangelists that Jesus could
be the Messiah and yet not be able to foretell his own fate; or that
this fate could come to him against his will and not have an important
Messianic purpose. Jesus is therefore described not only as foreseeing
his death and its purpose but as explaining it not once but several
times to his disciples:
Matthew 16:21. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto
his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many
things . . . and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
In the search for the "historic Jesus" this pious view of the Evangel-
ists must, however, be discounted. Despite their report of Jesus' plain
speaking and of the overwhelming evidence of the "Transfiguration,"
there are various points later in the gospels where the disciples
(Peter most of all) behave as though they had no premonition of
disaster; and as though disaster, when it came, left them in despair and
the abandonment of their belief in Jesus' Messiah-hood.
We can continue the story, therefore, on the assumption that Jesus
and his disciples, now that they were secure in their feeling that
they were carrying through the mission of the Messiah, were counting
on a straightforward Messianic triumph.
858
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
]ames and John
Indeed, now that the disciples accepted the belief that Jesus was
the Messiah, so far were they from understanding what the conse-
quences were fated to be that two of them asked for positions of
honor. Mark tells the incident most baldly:
Mark 10:35. And ]ames and ]ohn, the sons of Zebedee, come
unto him [Jesus], saying . . .
Mark 10:37. • • • Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy
right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
They were asking for high office in the Messianic kingdom, which,
they felt, was about to be established; and doing so, moreover, behind
the backs of the rest.
Mark 10:41. And when the [other] ten heard it, they began to
be much displeased with fames and John.
and Jesus had to work hard to restore amity among his followers.
Matthew, in his version, softens it considerably by absolving James
and John of sole responsibility for this exercise in intrigue, and placing
at least part of the blame on the easy-to-forgive partiality of a mother:
Matthew 20:20. Then came to him [Jesus] the mother of
Zebedee's children with her sons . . .
According to Matthew, it was the mother who actually asked the
favor of Jesus. But perhaps one might prefer Mark's version of the
two apostles boldly asking for preference on their own responsibility,
rather than hiding behind their mother's skirts to do so.
The restoration of peace among the disciples may well have come
about through the promise of equal rank for all:
Matthew 19:28. And Jesus said unto them, ... ye which have
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit
in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
MATTHEW 859
Once again, Matthew interprets Jesus' Messianic mission in a strictly
Jewish sense.
The Mount of Olives
Now that Jesus was determined to carry through his role as Messiah,
he had to go to Jerusalem, for it was there that, according to all the
prophecies, the Messianic kingdom would be established.
Matthew 19:1. . . . Jesus . . . departed from Galilee, and came
into . . . Judaea beyond Jordan . . .
Jesus crossed the Jordan to Jericho and then traveled westward
toward Jerusalem, deliberately following the activities predicted of the
Messiah's coming:
The Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem
Matthew 20:29. And as they departed from Jericho, a great
multitude followed him.
860
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew 21:1. And . . . they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and
were come to Bethpage, unto the mount of Olives . . .
The Mount of Olives, a hill about half a mile high, is less than
half a mile east of Jerusalem. Jesus did not select that route by
accident. It was from the Mount of Olives, according to prophecy, that
the Messiah would appear. Thus, Zechariah, in predicting the divine
coming on the day of the Lord says:
Zechariah 14:4. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the
mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east . . .
At Bethpage, a village on the mount, Jesus made his final prepara-
tions. The excitement among his disciples must have been extreme,
for it is reasonable to suppose that they expected Messianic success to
follow at once. At least, Jesus is quoted as having predicted this to his
disciples shortly after he had undertaken his Messianic role in Caesarea
Philippi.
Matthew 16:28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom.
This has been variously interpreted, but if this were said to the
disciples, one could assume that it was accepted at face value and
that the trip to Jerusalem was made in the assurance that the Messianic
kingdom was about to be established.
With the establishment of the kingdom in mind, Jesus planned to
enter Jerusalem mounted, in the traditional fashion of a king, and
not on foot. Thus, when Solomon was acclaimed king, one of the
symbolic forms this acclamation took was his mounting of the royal
mule:
1 Kings 1:38. So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and
Benaiah . . . caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule . . .
And yet the mount was not to be a royal one, for in one im-
portant prophesy the Messiah is recorded as destined to come into
Jerusalem in humble fashion, riding upon an ass.
Zechariah 9:9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; . . . behold,
thy King cometh unto thee: . . . riding upon an ass, and upon a
colt the foal of an ass.
MATTHEW
861
In order to fulfill the prophecy, Jesus sent two disciples to get a
young ass for him so that he might make his entry upon it. This is
done, and he is described as entering Jerusalem upon an ass in all
the gospels but that of Matthew.
Matthew, in his eagerness to quote the passage from Zechariah
(which is not quoted in the other gospels) and to demonstrate its
fulfillment to the letter, misses the point of Hebrew poetic parallelism.
The phrase "riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass"
describes the same act in two slightly different phrases.
Matthew assumes, instead, that two different animals are involved
and has the disciples bring two, an ass and its colt:
Matthew 21:7. And [the disciples] brought the ass, and the colt,
and put on them their clothes, and they set him [Jesus] thereon.
This gives us a rather odd picture of Jesus riding two animals at
once.
Hosanna
As described by Matthew, Jesus had an important and large party
enthusiastically on his side. Part may have come with him, drawn
by his teachings; others may have been in Jerusalem but had heard
tales of a wonder-working prophet coming to Jerusalem. In any case,
his passage toward Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives is pictured
as a triumph:
Matthew 21:8. And a very great multitude spread their garments
in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed
them in the way.
Matthew 21:9. And the multitudes that went before, and that fol-
lowed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he
that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
The word "hosanna" is a Greek version of a Hebrew phrase mean-
ing "Save! We pray!" or, in ordinary language, "Please help us." The
acclamation is a paraphrase from the Book of Psalms.
Psalm 118:25. Save now, I beseech thee, O Lord: O Lord,
I beseech thee, send now prosperity.
862
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Psalm 118:26. Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the
Lord . . .
The twenty-fifth verse has "Hosanna" translated into "Save now, I
beseech thee." Left untranslated, the verse would read, "Hosanna,
O Lord: O Lord, hosanna . . ."
It was clear that Jesus was being acclaimed with a passage that
was applied to God in the Psalms, and that he was therefore being
called the Messiah. Indeed, the use of the term "Son of David" made
that explicit.
The disciples led and guided the cheering, and there were those
in the crowd who were horrified at the blasphemy involved in acclaim-
ing a Galilean preacher as the Messiah. This is brought out in Luke:
Luke 19:39. And some of the Pharisees from among the multi-
tude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
Luke 19:40. And he [Jesus] answered ... I tell you that, if
these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry
out.
It was no longer a matter of overenthusiastic disciples. Jesus himself
was, if not actually proclaiming Messiah-hood in the full view of the
people of Jerusalem, accepting such a claim by others.
The Temple
In his new role as ultimate authority, Jesus took drastic action in the
very Temple itself:
Matthew 21:12. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and
cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and over-
threw the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that
sold doves,
Matthew 21:13. And said unto them, It is written, My house
shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of
thieves.
Actually, the moneychangers and merchants performed an essential
service for those who wished to perform those rites that required
the donation of small sums and the sacrifice of small birds. Through
laxness, however, commercialism seems to have been allowed to invade
MATTHEW
863
Jerusalem
the sacred precincts of the Temple instead of being kept well outside.
Perhaps, too, some of the merchants were not above sharp practice
at the expense of ignorant and naive pilgrims from the country dis-
tricts. (It is quite possible that Jesus, in Galilee, heard indignant
tales concerning the manner in which his neighbors were cheated
on their visits to the Temple.)
Jesus' exercise of power within the Temple and his preachings
there bitterly offended the Sadducees. They might have ignored fine
doctrinal points and questions of ritual since they themselves re-
jected all the Pharisaic traditions that had grown up about the written
864
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Law. The Temple, however, was their own preserve and they did
not take lightly the forceful actions of outsiders within it. Further-
more, Jesus' quotation was an offensive one, for in referring to the
Temple as "a den of thieves" he was making use of Jeremiah's
Temple Sermon, which, of all passages in the Old Testament, must
have been least pleasing to the priests of the Temple (see page I-561 ) .
Jeremiah 7:11. Is this house [the Temple] . . . become a den
of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord.
The reaction of the Temple priesthood is described:
Matthew 21:15. And when the chief priests and scribes saw
the wonderful things that he [Jesus] did, and the children crying
in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they
were sore displeased . . .
Nevertheless, Jesus' preaching, as well as his deeds, was gathering
enthusiastic crowds about him and the Temple priests could hardly
claim to be popular among the unlettered and impoverished multitude.
They were at a loss for proper action:
Matthew 21 146. . . . when they sought to lay hands on him, they
feared the multitude, because they [the multitude] took him [Jesus]
for a prophet.
Nor could they take the opportunity to seize him at night when
he was relatively alone, for Jesus was cautious enough not to remain
in Jerusalem overnight.
Matthew 21:17. . . . he [Jesus] left them, and went out of the
city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
Bethany was a suburb of Jerusalem, about a mile to the east and just
on the other side of the Mount of Olives.
The Son of David
Jesus was greeted as the Son of David on his entrance into Jerusalem
and is so addressed at various times in the gospel. The phrase is
synonymous with "Messiah," since the Messiah was generally expected
(on the basis of numerous Old Testament prophecies) to be of the
MATTHEW 865
line of David and therefore to be a son (that is, a descendant) of
David.
In the first couple of chapters of Matthew (and of Luke as well),
Jesus is considered to be literally a descendant of David and his line
of descent is given, as well as the tale of his birth in Bethlehem. No-
where else, however, is this taken into account. Jesus is always identified
as being of Nazareth and nowhere is he reported as correcting the
impression by declaring himself to be of Bethlehem.
Even when he was entering Jerusalem and being acclaimed as Mes-
siah, he was identified as a Galilean:
Matthew 21:10. And when he [Jesus] was come into Jerusalem,
all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
Matthew 21:11. And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet
of Nazareth of Galilee.
This was a serious bar to Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. Matthew
cannot say so since he maintains that Jesus was indeed of the Davidic
line. In the gospel of St. John, however, where the birth at Bethlehem
and the Davidic descent play no part, the objection is stated:
John 7:41. Others said [of Jesus], This is the Christ. But some
said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
We could imagine, then, that the Pharisees of Jerusalem must have
been outraged at this sight of a Galilean nobody coming into town
and claiming to be the Messiah. The claim could easily have been
scotched. They had only to face him and say, in effect, "You say you
are the Messiah, and if so of whose descent must the Messiah be?"
Jesus would have had to answer, "He is a descendant of David," and
the Pharisees could then say, "Well, then, since you are not a descend-
ant of David, how can you be the Messiah?"
If Matthew's tale of Jesus' Davidic descent is true, we might then
expect that Jesus would win the argument by a shattering display of
evidence as to his birth at Bethlehem and his descent from David.
Suppose, though, that Jesus were not born in Bethlehem and were
not of Davidic descent— that these elements in Matthew are legends of
comparatively late origin. In that case, Jesus would have had to counter
the argument by demonstrating, somehow, that the Messiah did not
have to be of Davidic descent; that it was impossible, in fact, that he
be of Davidic descent.
866
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In Matthew's account, Jesus does precisely this, disproving the Da-
vidic descent of the Messiah, even though it goes squarely against
Matthew's tale of Jesus' descent from the line of David.
In Matthew's account, however, it is Jesus who raises the point, for
no clear reason:
Matthew 22:41. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus
asked them,
Matthew 22:42. Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?
They say unto him, The Son of David.
Jesus then demonstrates that they are wrong by the clever use of an
Old Testament verse. It is perhaps the neatness of his argument that
made the tale so popular that it could not be left out of the gospel
even though it was an embarrassing contradiction to Matthew's tale of
Jesus' birth:
Matthew 22:43. He [Jesus] saith unto them, How then doth
David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Matthew 22:44. The ^° r ^ sa 'd un *° m y Lord, Sit thou on my
right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Matthew 22:45. If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
The reference here is to one of the Psalms:
Psalm 110:1. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Jesus is quoted as interpreting the second "Lord" as signifying the
Messiah, something which, indeed, was a common interpretation
among the Jews in Roman times and among Christians now. There-
fore the writer of the Psalm (presumably David) speaks of the Mes-
siah as "my Lord" and David, Jesus argues, would scarcely address his
own descendant as a superior— so that the Messiah must be more than
merely a descendant of David.
(Of course, the Psalm could be interpreted non-Messianically. It is
thought to be a coronation psalm in which God is described as ad-
dressing the new king of Judah. The second "my Lord" is the common
address of respect for the king and the verse could be translated as
beginning "God said to the king . . .")
By having Jesus ask the original question, one might speculate that
Matthew was trying to present the passage as a battle of wits between
MATTHEW
867
Jesus and the Pharisees, in which Jesus by a clever bit of what we
would today call "Talmudic" reasoning presents a thesis to the Pharisees
and dares them to refute it. The thesis need not be true— that is not
the issue— but the failure of the Pharisees to answer establishes Jesus'
superiority over them. And they failed:
Matthew 22:46. And no man was able to answer him a word . . .
Nevertheless, it is tempting to suggest that the Pharisees proposed
the original question and that Jesus calmly denied the necessity of
Davidic descent, saving himself— to the Pharisees' surprise— from what
they believed to be a crushing gambit, and that only Matthew's com-
mitment to the Davidic descent prevented him from presenting it as
such. The passage could then be considered as a glance at the "historic
Jesus" who was a Galilean carpenter but insisted on being regarded as
the Messiah despite that.
The Herodians
It grew increasingly clear to the Temple authorities that Jesus' claims
would not easily be quashed. Galilean backwoodsman or not, he had
a quick wit and a fund of ready quotations. Yet he had to be stopped
just the same before Messianic fervor produced dangerous unrest all
across the city. If Jesus' doctrinal views could not be used against him,
what about his political views?
If Jesus could be forced to say something politically subversive, in-
stead of merely doctrinally heretical, the Romans could be called in.
Roman soldiers could act at once without having to stop to exchange
Old Testament quotations:
Matthew 22:16. And they [the Pharisees] sent out unto him their
disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art
true . . . neither carest thou for any man . . .
By this flattery, they hoped they would trick him into making some
uncompromising statement regardless of whom it would offend. And
just in case he did, they had the Herodians with them. These were
civil officials who supported the Herodian dynasty. Presumably they
worked constantly with the Romans, had entry to the Roman governor,
868
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
and could report to him quickly of any subversive remark made by
Jesus.
It seemed certain to those now questioning Jesus that anyone claim-
ing to be the Messiah would have to hold out hopes for the overthrow
of the Roman Empire and for the establishment of the ideal Jewish
state. It was exactly this that the populace expected of a Messiah. A
question that was bound, it seemed, to force Jesus either to advocate
rebellion or to give up all Messianic pretenses was now fired at him:
Matthew 22:17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful
to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
("Caesar," of course, was the title given to the Roman Emperor.
It harked back to Julius Caesar, who had been assassinated in 44 B.C.,
but whose grandnephew became Rome's first Emperor, fifteen years
later.)
If, now, Jesus refused to answer, surely he would be despised as a
coward by those in the audience who advocated resistance to Rome,
and they must have represented the majority of those who eagerly
acclaimed Jesus as the Messiah. If he advocated payment of tribute,
that would be even worse. If, on the other hand, he advocated non-
payment of tribute, that would give the Romans instant reason to
intervene.
Jesus sought a way out. The coins used in paving tribute had the
figure of Caesar on them. That made those coins unfit to be handled
by Jews anyway, strictly speaking. The first of the Ten Commandments
forbade the making of any representations of any living thing and
Jewish monarchs, such as the various Herods, were usually careful to
avoid stirring up the orthodox by putting their own portraits upon
their coins. The idolatrous coin, which it was sinful for Jews to handle,
might just as well be given to the man whose portrait was there. Jesus
said:
Matthew 22:21. . . . Render therefore unto Caesar the things
which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Jesus had thus found a safe path between the horns of what had
seemed an insoluble dilemma. He had advocated tribute payment,
which kept the Romans from interfering; but had done so for a
thoroughly religious reason which was consistent with his role as Mes-
siah.
MATTHEW
869
And yet Jesus' enemies may have won a point here, too. One can
easily picture the Zealots among Jesus' audience as waiting impa-
tiently for his answer. They were fiercely anti-Roman and they wanted
a Messiah who would lead them with divine force against the hated
Romans.
Here, then, was the question. Shall we pay tribute?
The proper Messianic answer, in the Zealot view, was a thunderous
"No!"
That would begin the rebellion at once; just as at one time, the re-
fusal of Mattathias to participate in a heathen sacrifice had begun the
rebellion of the Maccabees.
And instead, Jesus found refuge in an evasion. If the crowd in
general applauded Jesus' clever retort, might it not be that some of
the more extreme Zealots now fell away in contempt. This was not
their man. This was not the Messiah they were waiting for.
And how must Judas Iscariot have felt? If it were indeed true that
he was an extreme Zealot (see page 841) he may well have been
filled with a wild anger at the failure of this man he had believed to
be the Messiah. If this is so, it explains what was to follow.
Zacharias son of Barachias
But if Jesus was careful to avoid offending the Romans, he did not
hesitate to strike back at the religious leadership. He is pictured by
Matthew as preaching to the multitude, at this time, and in the course
of his talk, denouncing the scribes and Pharisees unsparingly, as in-
dividuals whose piety was concerned entirely with ritual and not with
substance, and who were therefore hypocrites.
He spoke ominously, furthermore, of the manner in which truly
pious men in the past had been killed by an unappreciative people,
and he warns of retribution:
Matthew 23:35. . . . upon you may come all the righteous blood
shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the
blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the
temple and the altar.
This is generally believed to be a reference to the fate of Zechariah,
the high priest in the time of Joash of Judah (see page I-422) . Zechariah
870
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
had berated the court for tolerating idolatry and had won the enmity
of the king and his courtiers:
2 Chronicles 24:21. And they conspired against him [Zechariah],
and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the
court of the house of the Lord.
This identification is the more convincing since it would make it
seem that Jesus was deliberately including all the unjust murders of
just men that had been mentioned from one end of the Bible to the
other. In the Hebrew Bible, the books of Chronicles are placed at the
end, and all the Old Testament books are divided (by modem usage)
into a total of 929 chapters. The murder of Cain is the first to be
mentioned and is found in the fourth chapter; that of Zechariah is the
last and is in the 917th chapter.
It must be admitted, however, that the Zechariah spoken of in
2 Chronicles is differently identified as to his father's name:
2 Chronicles 24:20. And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah
the son of Jehoiada . . .
Why, then, Jesus should identify him as the "son of Barachias" is
uncertain. Is a different individual being referred to after all? Or is
the mention of Barachias a copyist's (mistaken) added identification,
based on confusion with another Zechariah casually mentioned in
Isaiah?
Isaiah 8:2. And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah
the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
The Abomination of Desolation
There follows, then, an apocalyptic passage in which Jesus describes
the future. Some of it seems to deal quite specifically with the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem by the Romans that was to take place forty years
after the gospel period.
Matthew 24:15. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
place . . .
MATTHEW
871
Matthew 24:16. Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the
mountains . . .
The abomination of desolation was the statue of Zeus erected in the
Temple by Antiochus IV, and could mean, more generally, the tri-
umph of pagan forces over Jerusalem, something which happened in
a.d. 70.
In the course of the Jewish rebellion against Rome, the followers of
Jesus took the pacifist view and did not participate in the defense of
Jerusalem, but fled into the hills. It may be, therefore, that these verses
were added to the traditional apocalyptic discourse of Jesus, after the
fact, and that this gospel (and the other synoptic gospels, as well) did
not reach their completed present form till after a.d. 70.
After the reference to the fall of Jerusalem, there follows a general
description of the future beyond, given in typical Old Testament terms
of total destruction:
Matthew 24:29. Immediately after the tribulation of those days
shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
and the stars shall fall from heaven . . .
Following that will be the appearance of the Messiah and the
establishment of the ideal kingdom.
Matthew 24:30. . . . and they shall see the Son of man coming in
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
This, however, raises a problem. To those who believed that Jesus
was the Messiah, the Messiah had already come. Apparently there
would have to be a "second coming." This second coming was not
to be long delayed:
Matthew 24:34. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
To be sure, it is usually now maintained that this verse refers to the
fall of Jerusalem and not to the second coming, which is described
immediately before. Nevertheless, this was not the view of the early
Christians, who, in line with this verse, expected the second coming
daily.
Still, Jesus refused to specify an exact time for the second coming.
Matthew 24:36. . . .of that day and hour knoweth no man, no,
not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
872
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Talent
One of Jesus' parables, quoted in connection with the suddenness
and unexpectedness of the second coming, deals with a man who
gives money into the care of servants, then returns suddenly and de-
mands an accounting.
Matthew 25:15. And unto one he gave five talents, to another
two, and to another one; to every man according to his several
ability . . .
The "talent" was originally a Greek unit of measure, from a word
meaning "a balance." This is a reference to the time when gold and
silver were carefully weighed out on a balance before being used for
payment— before the time (in the sixth century b.c.) when coins of
standard weight, stamped with the portrait of the monarch as a guaran-
tee of honest measure, came into use.
The talent was a large unit of money, especially for ancient times.
The talent used in Judca in New Testament times was equal to six
thousand shekels and that was undoubtedly the equivalent of several
thousand dollars in modem money.
The use of the word in the verses above, in which each man receives
a number of talents according to his abilities, has given rise to the use
of the word as an expression of a particular ability possessed by an
individual. In fact, in modem English, the use of the word as a unit
of money has completely died out and the only meaning of "talent"
of which most people are aware is that of a superior ability of some
sort.
Caiaphas
To the Pharisees and to the Temple authorities, Jesus' final speeches
must have seemed to represent an intolerable danger. The ignorant
populace was being aroused into fury by Jesus' accusations against
them. Anything might follow and the case was taken to the very
highest religious authority among the Jews, the high priest himself:
MATTHEW 873
Matthew 26:3. Then assembled together the chief priests, and the
scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high
priest, who was called Caiaphas . . .
The office of the high priest was not what it once was. The true
Zadokites had passed in the time of Antiochus IV. The Maccabean
high priests had passed with the coming of Herod. The last of the
Maccabean high priests, Aristobulus III, had been executed in 35 b.c.
at the order of Herod. In the century that followed (the last century
of the existence of the Temple) there had been numerous high priests
set up by Herod or by the Roman authorities and these were chosen
out of one or another of a few of the aristocratic Judean families.
The hold of these last high priests, without either Zadokite or Mac-
cabean prestige, on the allegiance of the common people must have
been slight indeed, but they controlled the Temple and grew rich and
powerful because of that.
In a.d. 6, Annas ("Hanan" in Hebrew) was appointed high priest
and remained in office until a.d. 15. He was then deposed by an in-
coming Roman official who, undoubtedly, felt he could use the bribes
that would come his way if he were in a position to appoint a new
high priest. For a while Simon, the son of Annas served and then, in
aj>. 18, Caiaphas (his given name was Joseph, according to Josephus),
the son-in-law of Annas, succeeded to the post. At the time of Jesus'
stay in Jerusalem, Caiaphas had already been high priest for eleven
years and was to remain high priest for seven more.
Caiaphas could see the seriousness of the situation for, in his posi-
tion, he was bound to know the Romans well. He had to deal with
them frequently and he undoubtedly obtained his office in the first
place only through financial dickering with them.
The Judean of the countryside, or of the Jerusalem slums, or (even
more so) the Galilean of the provinces could have little knowledge
of the true strength of Rome. He could see only the few Roman
soldiers who might have been present in a nearby garrison. The com-
mon people might believe the Romans could be beaten, especially if
they felt that a miraculous Messiah was on their side.
However, Caiaphas knew that the Romans could nor be beaten—
not at this stage in their history— and forty years later this was proved
tragically correct to the Jews.
To be sure, Jewish rebels of this period usually believed the Messiah
874
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to be with them, and at this particular moment the Jerusalem populace
was hailing Jesus as the Messiah. Caiaphas, however, did not believe
this. It is important to remember that, in the century after the fall
of the Maccabees, many men with Messianic pretensions arose and
that every one of them had some following. Concerning every one of
them, there rose wonder tales of miraculous feats and cures, tales that
grew in the telling.
Matthew quotes Jesus himself as witness to this in the apocalyptic
discourse:
Matthew 24:24. For there shall arise false Christs, and false proph-
ets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it
were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
To Caiaphas, Jesus could only be one of these "false Christs." From
his point of view Jerusalem was rumbling with excitement over a
provincial preacher, who was rabble-rousing the populace to a dangerous
pitch. In just a couple of days, the Passover was to be celebrated and
pilgrims would be flocking into the city from all directions to worship
at the Temple. Excitement would reach the fever point and, fortified
by the certainty of Messianic help, someone would kill a Temple
oEcial or, worse still, attack a Roman soldier. Then all would be lost.
There would be a rebellion and Judea would be crushed and wiped
out. What Antiochus IV had failed to do, the Romans would succeed
in doing.
Indeed, this point of view is made explicit in John where at this
point of the story the following views of the priestly officials are
quoted:
John 11:48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on
him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place
and our nation.
John 11:49. ^nd one °f them, named Caiaphas, being the high
priest that same year, said unto them . . .
John 11:50. . . . it is expedient for us, that one man should die
for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
This last remark is often quoted as an example of appalling cyni-
cism, but of course it is a principle that is used constantly by all na-
tions both before and after the time of Caiaphas.
Nor can the high-priestly view be considered as overly pessimistic,
MATTHEW
875
since forty years later it all turned out as they had feared. The Romans
did come and take away their place and their nation. It might even
be argued that only because the authorities took action against Jesus
were forty years of additional life given the nation.
Judas Iscariot
Not only did the authorities decide that Jesus must be apprehended
and removed as a great danger to the nation, they felt also that it had
to be done at once. In two more days it would be Passover and it
might then be too late. The very act of trying to make the arrest on
that most nationalistic of all Jewish holidays (when God had smitten
the Egyptians) might stir passions to the point of revolt, even if revolt
had not already broken out spontaneously:
Matthew 26:4. And [the chief priests] consulted that they might
take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
Matthew 26:5. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be
an uproar among the people.
It was clear, moreover, that the aiTest had best be carried through
at night, when the city was sleeping, so that there be no uproar at
the very moment of arrest, and so that the city might be presented with
a completed deed in the morning. Indeed, if the deed could be carried
through without an immediate revolt, the mere success of it would
prevent a revolt, since what kind of Messiah could be arrested by a
few soldiers? To many, Jesus would then seem a false Messiah and
there would be a vast falling-away from him.
But— and here was the problem— where was Jesus staying at night?
The authorities would find him, but would they find him in time?
As it happened, Caiaphas found an unexpected ally. One of Jesus'
chief disciples, Judas Iscariot, defected:
Matthew 26:14. Then one of the twelve, called ]udas Iscariot, went
unto the chief priests,
Matthew 26:15. And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I
will deliver him unto you? . . .
In other words, he would point Jesus out to them in the quiet of
night and make it possible for them to arrest him without fuss.
876
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Judas' action here has made his name a byword for villainy through
all ages since. To call someone "a judas" is to call him a traitor in the
extreme.
But what was Judas' motive? Matthew implies that it was greed
since he asked for money, "What will ye give me . . ."
In John, this view is sharpened, and it is implied that as treasurer of
the group Judas was in charge of funds and helped himself to them:
John 12:6. . . he [Judas] was a thief, and had the bag, and
bare what was put therein.
Could it be that his defalcations had been detected and that he was
forced into betrayal in a wild attempt to avoid disgrace?
But if it were greed that motivated Judas, it would seem that he
profited very little. The priestly officials were in a position where they
would have been willing to pay handsomely indeed for the service
Judas was offering and yet Matthew reports:
Matthew 26:15. . . . And they covenanted with him for thirty
pieces of silver.
One can't help but wonder if Matthew's penchant for Old Testament
prophecies hadn't gripped him here. This was the price mentioned by
Zechariah in connection with his mysterious shepherd (see page I-669):
Zechariah 11:12. And I said unto them . . . give me my price;
... So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Matthew must have had this verse in mind. Only Matthew of all
the Evangelists mentions the specific sum paid for the betrayal, for
only he feels it necessary to match Old Testament prophecy.
Could it be that the betrayal was only secondarily for money (if at
all) and that the real motive was something else?
It is frequently mentioned (see page 841 ) that Judas was the only
Judean among the apostles and that he was therefore less loyal to a
Galilean preacher than were the other apostles, all of whom were
Galileans.
Indeed, there have been strongly anti-Semitic individuals who have
argued that only the Judeans were the true Jews in the modem sense
and that Galileans were only converted Jews who were not really of
Jewish descent. It follows, in their line of reasoning, that Galileans are
MATTHEW
877
virtuous and that Jews are wicked and that no further reason is needed
to explain Judas' betrayal.
Such arguments are, of course, beneath contempt, even if Judas
were indeed the only Judean. But was he? That view depends entirely
on the thought that Iscariot means "man of Kerioth," a theory which
has been accepted very widely for centuries but is doubtful neverthe-
less. If, indeed, Judas Iscariot is a misreading for Judas Sicariot ("Judas
the Terrorist") then it is possible to view the betrayal in an entirely
different light
Suppose Judas was heart and soul one of those extremists who desired
and demanded instant war against Rome. He may have attached him-
self to Jesus in the hope that this man might indeed be the Messiah
whose coming would put an end to the hated Roman dominion at
once. It may have been with a gathering excitement that he traveled
with Jesus to Jerusalem, that he witnessed Jesus' triumphant entry, his
cleansing of the Temple and his gathering popularity.
Judas may have felt sure that Passover would be the signal for the
divine battle, so often foretold in detail by the prophets, in which all
the forces of heathendom would be destroyed and the Son of David
would be seated on the throne of the kingdom.
What changed things? It may well have been the matter of the
Roman tribute and Jesus' retort that what was Caesar's would have
to be given to Caesar (see page 868) . To Judas, this may have seemed
a disclaimer of any intention to oppose Rome politically and a declara-
tion on Jesus' part that he was concerned with religious and ethical
matters only. If so, that would have been a crushing blow to him.
Then, too, if Jesus did in fact preach the second coming, and if
that passage (see page 871) is not an insertion by later hands after
Jesus' death, then that could well have completed Judas' disillusion-
ment. It was now that Judas wanted action— not having it postponed
after the Messianic coming to a second coming.
What happened next might be explained in one of two ways. Judas
might have been so sick with disillusionment as to have yearned for
revenge. Feeling he had been made a fool of, he might have hastened,
in a fit of rage, to get back at what he considered a deceiver by arrang-
ing to have him arrested and executed.
Or, it might be that Judas still felt Jesus to be the Messiah, but one
who was, unaccountably, backing away from the final showdown. Per-
878
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
haps by placing him in danger of arrest, he could force Jesus to take
what Judas would have considered appropriate Messianic action.
All this, of course, is guesswork— nothing more than supposition.
Still, there is one more item that may be added.
While the priests were conferring, and while Judas was arranging
his betrayal, Jesus was spending his last night in Bethany. There a
woman pours a jar of expensive ointment over his head.
The disciples are pictured as annoyed at the waste, feeling that the
ointment might have been sold and the proceeds donated to the poor,
but Jesus consoles them with the observation that he was being
anointed for his forthcoming burial.
In John, however, it is only Judas who is recorded as complaining:
John 12:4. Then saith . . . ]udas Iscariot . . .
John 12:5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred
pence, and given to the poor?
(It is at this point that John states that Judas said this not out of
regard for the poor but because he was a thief who was in charge of
the treasury.)
In John, it was after this event that Judas carried through his be-
trayal. If we consider John's account, might this not fit in with the
theory of Judas' disillusionment. Might he not have been irritated at
the act of anointment— the traditional rite of establishing the king-
ship? The physical action emphasized Jesus to be the Messiah, the
"Anointed One," and that must have sharpened Judas' sick feeling
that Jesus was betraying the Messiah-hood by refusing to lead a revolt
against Rome.
Gethsemane
On Passover Eve, Jesus and his disciples dined within Jerusalem.
This is the "last supper." Judas Iscariot was at this meal, but im-
mediately afterward must have slipped away to consult with the priestly
officials.
Jesus and the remaining disciples then left but did not go far:
Matthew 26:36. Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called
Gethsemane . . .
MATTHEW
879
Jerusalem
Gethsemane was just outside Jerusalem on the western slopes of the
Mount of Olives and, presumably, in an olive grove where once an oil
press had stood. (The name "Gethsemane" means "oil press.") Judas
knew Jesus would be there, something that is made specifically clear
in John:
John 18:2. And Judas . . . knew the place: for ]esus ofttimes
resorted thither with his disciples.
Interpreted from a rationalistic standpoint, the "historic Jesus" pos-
sibly expected the next day to be crucial and to be the day on which
880
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the city would rise in his favor so that, under the circumstances, he
stayed as close to the city as possible.
Presumably, now that the moment of decision was at hand, a feeling
of uncertainty gripped him. Was what he was doing really correct?
Would he succeed? He is recorded as spending the time in an agony of
prayer.
Matthew 26:39. And he . . . fell on his face, and prayed, saying,
O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless
not as 1 will, but as thou wilt.
One can, in this verse, see the "historic Jesus" shrinking from at-
tempting the final test, uncertain of success, fearing the consequences,
and yet feeling that there was no way out.
The Judas Kiss
The suspense was suddenly ended, however, with the arrival of the
armed men sent by the priests. Judas had guided them to the place
where Jesus was to be found— a place known to Judas but not to the
authorities. It was now, in the quiet of night, that Jesus could be taken,
and when Passover Day dawned the potential rebellion would be
stymied because of the sudden lack of a leader— and the revelation that
Jesus had been nothing but a deceiving and false Messiah.
The only possibility of failure now lay in the fact that, by mistake,
a disciple might be arrested and Jesus might escape. There were three
disciples with Jesus at this final scene of prayer at Gcthsemane:
Matthew 26:37. he [Jesus] took with him Peter and the two
sons of Zebedee . . .
and any one of the three might be mistaken for Jesus. It was, after all,
dark, and the armed men did not, presumably, know Jesus by sight.
Judas therefore had to identify Jesus unmistakably and he offered
to do so:
Matthew 26:48. . . . he [Judas] . . . gave them a sign, saying,
Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
To modem Americans, this seems to aggravate the treason; to betray
with a kiss is peculiarly villainous. That is, in part, a reflection of our
MATTHEW
SSI
own social customs, in which kissing has been made a sign of particular
intimacy and affection. In other cultures, however, a kiss between men
on meeting can be quite common. It would be the normal greeting
and of no greater significance than a handshake in our culture. The
treason is, of course, bad enough even so.
Jesus is pictured by Matthew as surprised at Judas' coming and as
unaware of the traitor's purpose:
Matthew 26:49. . . . he [Judas] came to Jesus, and said, Hail,
master; and kissed him.
Matthew 26:50. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art
thou come? Then came they [the armed men], and laid hands on
Jesus, and took him.
To be sure, this section of the gospel is full of indications that Jesus
knew beforehand of Judas' treasons and the results thereof, as would
be expected of the divine foreknowledge of a Messiah. And it is some-
times suggested that Jesus' question of Judas, "Wherefore art thou
come?" is a metaphoric way of saying, "Do what you have come to
do." That is, "Let's get this over with."
Nevertheless, if we consider the "historic Jesus" we might well con-
sider him to have been surprised at Judas' sudden appearance and
unaware, for just a moment, as to the significance of it. The question
then makes sense at face value.
One of the disciples present offered a token resistance. He is un-
named here, but John states it to have been Peter:
Matthew 26:51. . . . one of them which were with Jesus stretched
out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high
priest's, and smote off his ear.
Matthew 26:52. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy
sword . . .
We might picture the "historic Jesus" as seeing that resistance was
useless and unwilling to have his disciples killed for nothing. Perhaps
he felt a sense of relief that the crisis of the revolt would not come
Or perhaps he still considered himself the Messiah and was certain
that there would yet be a divine intervention on his behalf.
(The traditional Jesus, as accepted by virtually all Christians since
then, knew what was to come, and that the trial, crucifixion, and
resurrection were part of the divine scheme.)
882 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The disciples at that point reacted, however, as though they were
facing the arrest of the "historic Jesus" rather than that of a divine
Messiah:
Matthew 26:56. . . . Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Christ
It now became necessary for the priestly authorities to find some sort
of crime for which Jesus could be convicted; one, if possible, that
would cany the death penalty. If he were merely punished and re-
leased, or worse yet, acquitted, after all this trouble they had taken,
the result would surely be told throughout Judea as an example of the
divine protection of the Messiah and revolt would be a certainty.
And yet to convict Jesus on a matter of purely doctrinal dispute
would be difficult:
Matthew 26:59. Now the chief priests . . . sought false witness
against Jesus, to put him to death;
Matthew 26:60. But found none . . .
In desperation, they turned to the matter of Messiah-hood itself.
Certainly, to claim, falsely, to be the Messiah, was the height of
blasphemy and deserved death. And certainly, Jesus' disciples had
openly claimed him to be the Messiah, and Jesus had implicitly ac-
cepted the role by refusing to rebuke them for doing so (see page 862) .
This, however, was not enough. The claims of the disciples might
be disowned; implicit acceptance of the claims might be explained
away. If, however, Jesus could be maneuvered into an open avowal of
Messiah-hood, under oath, in court, they would have him.
In fact, they would have everything they needed. The priesthood
could not, at this time in history, pronounce and carry through a
death sentence on their own. The approval of the Roman governor
of Judea was needed. Such approval might not be obtained for a
purely doctrinal matter (for such disputes the Roman rulers avoided
involvement as a matter of policy— there was too much chance of spark-
ing a troublesome revolt). However, if Jesus laid claim to Messiah-hood,
MATTHEW
88l
he simultaneously laid claim to being the rightful and ideal King of
the Jews. This, in turn, was a clear form of political revolt against
Rome's authority, even if Jesus made not a single overt move against
Rome. That meant the Roman authorities could be called in and a
death sentence was sure of being carried out.
The crucial question was therefore asked under oath:
Matthew 26:63. . . . the high priest . . . said unto him, I adjure
thee by the Living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ . . .
Matthew 26:64. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: neverthe-
less I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
The phrase, "Thou hast said" is, in itself, evasive, meaning "This is
something you have said," as though Jesus himself were careful neither
to affirm nor to deny. Mark's version of the question and answer
makes Jesus present his inquisitor with an open admission:
Mark 14:61. . . . the high priest asked him, . . . Art thou the
Christ . . .
Mark 14:62. And fesus said, I am . . .
However, even in Matthew's more cautious version of Jesus' answer,
Jesus goes on to expand his view with a Messianic quotation. The re-
mark concerning the Son of man is from the Book of Daniel:
Daniel 7:13. . . . one like the Son of man came with the clouds
of heaven . . .
Daniel 7:14. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a
kingdom . . .
That was it. Jesus seemed to be making a clear comparison of himself
with the figure in Daniel, one who was commonly accepted at the
time as representing the Messiah (see page I-610). The high priest had
what he wanted:
Matthew 26:65. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He
hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? . . .
Matthew 26:66. What think ye? They [the court] answered and
said, He is guilty of death.
884
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Peter
If Jesus, even at this crisis, maintained a firm belief in his Messiah-
hood, this was not so of his disciples. All had fled, and only one is
recorded as being present, secretly, at the trial:
Matthew 26:58. . . . Peter followed him [Jesus] afar off unto
the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to
see the end.
After the end of the trial, Peter was recognized three different times
as being one of the disciples of Jesus. It was Peter's chance to be as
true to his mission as Jesus was, but he failed. Each time he denied
knowing Jesus, the third time most emphatically:
Matthew 26:74. Then began he [Peter] ro curse and to swear,
saying, I know not the man . . .
Pontius Pilate
The priestly officials also had what they needed to bring Jesus before
the Roman authorities:
Matthew 27:1. When the morning was come, . . . the chief
priests . . .
Matthew 27:2. . . . bound him [Jesus], . . . led him away, and
delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
This is the first mention in Matthew of the secular ruler of Judea
since the reference to Archelaus at the time of the return of Joseph
and his family from Egypt (see page 797) .
Archelaus, or Herod Archelaus, ruled as ethnarch over Judea, Sa-
maria, and Idumea after the death of his father, Herod the Great, in
4 B.C. His rule, however, was harsh and oppressive and he succeeded
in antagonizing both Jews and Samaritans. Both groups, in a rare
exhibition of cooperation, appealed for relief to the Roman Emperor.
Rome was not in the least averse to strengthening its hold upon
the unruly province, for Judea had an important strategic significance
MATTHEW
885
at the time. Immediately to Judca's east was the powerful kingdom
of Parthia, and that kingdom was Rome's most dangerous enemy in
New Testament times.
In 53 b.c, for instance, not long after Judea had passed under
Roman domination, the Parthians had defeated a Roman army at
Carrhae. (This was the Graeco-Roman name for Haran, the city
where Abraham and his family had once dwelt. See page I-59. ) Seven
Roman legions had been destroyed, the worst Roman defeat ever suf-
fered, up to that time, in the east, and a defeat that had not yet been
avenged. Then again, in 40 B.C., the Parthians had taken advantage
of civil wars in Rome to occupy large sections of Roman territory in
the east. They had occupied Judea, which had cooperated with them
willingly against Rome, and against the Roman puppet, Herod.
As long as Judea retained even the semblance of independence,
then, she was a danger to Roman security for its ruler might at any
time decide to intrigue with the Parthians.
Rome therefore took advantage of the complaints of the Jews and
Samaritans to depose Herod Archelaus in a.d. 6, allowing him to live
out the remaining twelve years of his life in exile.
Neither Judea nor Samaria got independence as a result, of course.
Instead the area was made part of a Roman province, complete with
a Roman ruler and a well-armed Roman garrison.
Judea, although made part of the province of Syria, was, because of
its strategic importance, given special status. A governor was appointed
by the emperor, one who was to be responsible directly to himself as
well as to the provincial ruler of Syria. The Latin name for such an
official was "procurator" ("caretaker"). In Greek, the name given the
Roman officials over Judea was "hegemon" ("leader") and in the
King James Version, and the Revised Standard Version too, this be-
comes "governor."
The first four procurators of Judea ruled quietly enough. In a.d. 26,
however, Pontius Pilate was appointed. He was a man of obscure birth
who owed his advancement to the fact that he was a protege of Lucius
Aelius Sejanus, who was then the leader of the Praetorian Guard (a
contingent of soldiers which guarded Rome itself) and the most power-
ful man in the empire at the moment.
Sejanus was strongly anti-Jewish and Pilate probably took his job
on the understanding that he was to keep the Jews in check, weaken
886
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
them at every opportunity, and prevent them from ever serving as a
Parthian cat's-paw against Rome.
Pilate set about this with a will. Where earlier procurators had made
their headquarters at Caesarea, a city on the Samaritan coast, fifty
miles northwest of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate stationed troops in the
capital itself. This meant the army, with its ensigns bearing the por-
trait of the emperor, moved into Jerusalem. The excited Jews con-
sidered such portraits to be a violation of the commandment against
idolatry and protested violently. Eventually Pilate had to remove the
objectionable portraits when it seemed that a revolt would be the in-
evitable result if he didn't. There was no question but that he could
crush such a revolt, but disorders that might bring in the Parthians
would look bad on his record if it seemed that he had deliberately
provoked them.
Pilate may have made it a practice to be in Jerusalem during the
Passover season, when the city was crowded, and dangerous emotions
ran high. He was undoubtedly ready to take instant action in case
such feelings became a revolt. He might even have welcomed the
chance. He had already, on one recent occasion, showed no hesitation
in slaughtering a Galilean mob that had begun proving disorderly
during a festival:
Luke 13:1. . . . some . . . told him [Jesus] of the Galilaeans,
whose blood Pilate had minted with their sacrifices.
He would have no hesitation in doing so again. The high priest
must have known this and his treatment of Jesus must have had, as
one of its motives, the desire to forestall this eventuality by any
means, to deflect Pilate's anger from the Jews generally to a single man
so that "one man should die for the people."
The Potter's Field
Judas Iscariot is pictured, meanwhile, as horrified at the consequences
of his betrayal:
Matthew 27:3. Judas, . . . when he saw that he [Jesus] was con-
demned, repented himself . . .
MATTHEW
887
If he had planned to force Jesus into Messianic action, he felt now
that that plan had failed and that he was going to be responsible for
Jesus' death. If he had been seeking to punish Jesus for not being the
kind of Messiah that Judas would have liked to see, then apparently
he felt that the death penalty was more punishment than he had in-
tended.
He attempted to return the thirty pieces of silver to the priestly
officials and when they refused to accept it from his hands, he threw
the money down and went off and hanged himself, so that he died on
the same night as his betrayal. This remorse tends to relieve the traitor
of some of the utter blackness that has gathered about his name.
Unfortunately, the plausibility of Matthew's dramatic tale of the
end of Judas suffers from the suspicion that the evangelist was merely
trying to introduce yet another Old Testament quotation. With refer-
ence to the thirty pieces of silver that Judas had cast aside, Matthew
explains that the priests felt that the money, which was the price of
treachery, could not be put back in the treasury. It carried a man's
blood on it.
Matthew 27:7. And they . . . bought with them the potter's field,
to bury strangers in.
Matthew 27:8. Wherefore that field was called, The field of
blood, unto this day.
Matthew 27:9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by
Jeremy [Jeremiah] the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty
pieces of silver . . .
Matthew 27:10. And gave them for the potter's field . . .
The potter's field was, presumably, a place where one could obtain
clay of a kind suitable for the making of pottery. From the verses just
quoted, the phrase "potter's field" has come to mean any public burial
place for use of the criminal, the homeless, the paupered— anyone who
could not afford, or did not deserve, a better resting place.
Matthew's Old Testament quotation, however, is even more than
usually unapt, in this case. For one tiling, it is not from Jeremiah, but
from Zechariah's cryptic tale of the shepherds. (The mistake may have
come about because Jeremiah talks about buying a field at one point,
see page I-575, and tells a parable about potters at another point, but it
is a mistake just the same.)
888
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In the Book of Zechariah, the shepherd who resigned received thirty
pieces of silver for his wages (see page I-669) —
Zechariah 11:13. • • • ^ * 00 ^ Me thirty pieces of silver, and
cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.
But the "potter in the house of the Lord" is by no means the "pot-
ter's 6eld." Indeed, the very word "potter" is a mistranslation and
may appear in the Old Testament verse as a result of Matthew's
misuse of the passage and its effect upon the piety of those who worked
on the King James Version. The Revised Standard Version has the
phrase read "the treasury in the house of the Lord."
In other words, the money was, in Zechariah, deposited in the
Temple treasury, which is precisely what the priests refused to do with
Judas' money. The two passages are therefore not parallel, as Matthew
apparently felt, but, on the contrary, antithetical.
There is a competing tradition of Judas' death, given in the Acts
of the Apostles:
Acts 1:18. Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the
reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the
midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Acts 1:19. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue [Aramaic],
Aceldama, tliat is to say, The field of blood.
According to this competing tradition— which involves no Old Testa-
ment prophecies— Judas felt no remorse and committed no suicide. He
lived long enough to carry through a business transaction designed to
make him a landowner and died afterward of some sort of stroke.
Barabbas
Apparently, Pilate accepted Jesus' evasive answer to the high priest
("Thou hast said") as negative, or at least as not positive, and was
therefore uncertain that he merited execution. Or perhaps Pilate wanted
to disoblige the high priest, who, Pilate may well have felt, had his
own ulterior motives for wanting Jesus dead, quite apart from his actual
guilt or innocence:
MATTHEW
889
Matthew 27:18. For he [Pilate] knew that for envy they [the
priests] had delivered him [Jesus].
At any rate, he went over the head of the priestly party to the
people themselves, and ofiered to release a prisoner in honor of the
Passover festival.
Matthew 27:16. And they [the Romans] had then a notable
prisoner, called Barabbas.
Matthew 27:17. Therefore . . . Pilate said . . . Whom will ye
that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
Barabbas is not further described in Matthew. Mark, however, says:
Mark 15:7. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound
with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed
murder in the insurrection.
It might well be then that Barabbas had been one of the Sicarii,
or terrorists, who had led a guerrilla band against the Romans, and
had carried through the assassination of some Roman official. He might
well therefore be a hero to the Zealots, the very ones who were disen-
chanted with Jesus for having backed away in the matter of the
tribute.
Given their choice between a bandit leader who did not preach
but fought against the Romans, and one who preached and called
himself a Messiah but took no action and submitted tamely to cap-
ture, imprisonment, and trial, the populace (or at least the vocal
Zealots among them) called for Barabbas— and got him.
Barabbas is not a proper name but is the Aramaic equivalent of a
surname, meaning "son of the father." The word "Christ" or "Messiah"
can also be termed as "son of the Father" (though with a capital letter).
Oddly enough, tradition asserts that Barabbas' proper name was Joshua
or, in Greek, Jesus. Consequently, what Pilate was asking the crowd
was whether they wanted Jesus, son of the father, or Jesus, soh of the
Father.
There have indeed been those who suggested that Barabbas and
Jesus are the same person and that the tale of a bandit leader and of
a meek and peaceful Messiah somehow got entwined, that Jesus was
tried before Pilate but was released as Barabbas, and that the tale
890
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of the crucifixion and resurrection is the embroidery of later legend.
It is unlikely, however, that this view will ever gain many adherents.
Pilate and Pilate's Wife
Matthew emphasizes the reluctance of Pilate to give the order for
execution. Partly, he explains this through the use of his favorite de-
vice of a dream:
Matthew 27:19. When he [Pilate] was set down on the judgment
seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with
that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream
because of him.
This is the only appearance of Pilate's wife in the New Testament,
but tradition has been busy with her. It is said that her name was
Claudia Procula and that she was, or later became, a secret Christian.
She is even canonized in the Greek Orthodox Church.
Having offered to release Jesus and having had to release Barabbas
instead, Pilate is faced with a shouted cry for the execution of Jesus.
Pilate protested:
Matthew 27:23. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he
done? . . .
Matthew 27:24. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing,
... he foofc water, and washed his hands before the multitude, say-
ing, I am innocent of the blood of this just person . . .
All the four gospels agree that Pilate was reluctant to order the
execution of Jesus, but only Matthew inserts this hand-washing— a
dramatic act that makes the English phrase "to wash one's hands of
mean "to disclaim responsibility."
Possibly it was an act of Jewish ritual which the Roman Pilate would
not have performed, but it was one which Matthew, who knew a great
deal about Jewish ritual and very little about Roman ways, found
natural to include.
In the Book of Deuteronomy, it is stated that if a murdered body
be found and the murderer not be known, the people of the nearest
town go through a certain ritual, involving a heifer, for absolving
themselves of guilt:
MATTHEW 891
Deuteronomy 21:6. And all the elders of that city . . . shall
wash their hands over the heifer . . .
Deuteronomy 21:7. And they shall . . . say, Our hands have not
shed this blood . . .
Since Pilate thus proclaims his innocence, Matthew has the impatient
crowd accept the responsibility themselves, making use of the dramatic
Old Testament idiom used for the purpose:
Matthew 27:25. Then answered all the people, and said, His
blood be on us, and on our children.
This statement, which is found in none of the other gospels, and
which may well have arisen merely out of Matthew's penchant for in-
terpreting and describing everything in accordance with Old Testament
prophecy, ritual, and idiom, has cost the Jews a fearful price in the
two thousand years since Jesus' death.
As for Pilate, his later years are obscure. He remained as Procurator
of Judea till a.d. 36, when he was finally recalled because his tactless-
ness continued to rouse revolts among the Jews and Samaritans.
The manner of his death is not known. Hostile tradition has him
executed by the Roman Emperor, or committing suicide to avoid such
execution. On the other hand, there are also legends concerning his
later conversion to Christianity, based perhaps on the accounts of his
reluctance to condemn Jesus. There are apocryphal writings, too, which
no longer exist, but which are referred to by some of the early Chris-
tian writers. They were supposed to have represented his report con-
cerning the trial and resurrection of Jesus. Pilate is even canonized as
a saint in the Abyssinian church.
Crucifixion
Having disclaimed responsibility for Jesus' death, Pilate gave the order
for execution:
Matthew 27:26. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when
he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was neither a Jewish nor a Greek method of execution.
Among Jews, it was common to stone people to death; among the
892
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Greeks, to force them to take poison. The Romans, however, used
crucifixion as a punishment for treason. (So did other peoples, such as
the Persians and Carthaginians.)
A person, nailed to a wooden cross, died slowly of exposure, hunger,
and thirst. It was a cruel death; all the more so, since it was so public
as to divest the dying man of every shred of dignity, exposing him to
the jeers of heartless onlookers.
Yet, the fact remains that Jesus was not condemned to an unusual
or uncommon death, but one that was routine by Roman law. In
72 b.c, about a hundred years before the execution of Jesus, a band
of gladiators and slaves rebelled against Rome under the leadership of
Spartacus. They were eventually defeated by the Roman general Marcus
Licinius Crassus (a general who was to be defeated and killed fifteen
years later by the Parthians at the battle of Carrhae; see page 885) .
Crassus captured some six thousand of the slaves and, according to the
story, crucified them wholesale along the road from Rome to Capua,
so that any traveler would find himself going miles and miles between
a seemingly endless row of men slowly dying in painful torture. (Simi-
larly, Darius I of Persia at one time crucified three thousand Babylonian
rebels wholesale.)
Crucifixion, as a means of punishment, continued to be part of the
Roman law till it was abolished by Constantine I, the Roman Emperor
who first legalized the practice of Christianity.
Cyrene
It was customary for a man about to be crucified to cany the heavy
cross, or part of it, to the place of execution. Jesus may have been un-
able to lift the cross after the events of the night and the mistreatment
to which he had been subjected.
Matthew 27:32. And as they [the escorting soldiers] came out,
they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled
to bear his [Jesus'] cross.
Presumably, Simon had arrived in Jerusalem in order to attend the
Passover festival, and found himself unexpectedly carrying a cross.
Cyrene (see page 753) had a large Jewish colony in New Testament
times. Jason, the historian of the Maccabean revolt, on whose works
MATTHEW
893
2 Maccabees was based, was a man of Cyrene. In 117 B.C., Cyrene
became independent of Egypt, and in 67 b.c. it was absorbed by Rome.
Golgotha
Jesus was next led to the place of execution:
Matthew 27:33. . . . they were come unto a place called [in
Aramaic] Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull . . .
This is a grisly name indeed, deriving perhaps from the fact that
some vaguely skull-shaped promontory was in the neighborhood, or
from the existence of skulls of previous men executed there. (Both
suggestions are mere guesses.)
In Luke the Latin equivalent of the name is given:
Luke 23:33. . . . they were come to the place, which is called
Calvary . . .
The site of Golgotha /Calvary is not exactly known but it must have
been just outside Jerusalem.
There Jesus was crucified, with the record of the crime set above his
head, as was customary:
Matthew 27:37. And set up over his head his accusation written,
THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
This is a version of the significance of the name "Jesus Christ" and
is a record of the fact that Jesus was executed for the crime of treason
against Rome — claiming to be a king without Roman approval.
Vinegar and Gall
Matthew is intent on demonstrating that every aspect of the cruci-
fixion fulfills Old Testament prophecy. Thus, he describes a drink
offered Jesus by the soldiers:
Matthew 27:34. They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with
gall . . .
This sounds like an additional heartless torment inflicted upon a
dying man. Actually, it is the reverse. Vinegar (which is derived from
894
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
French words meaning "sour wine") can, in this case, be taken literally
as the sour wine that was the customary drink for the Roman soldiers.
The passage is translated in the Revised Standard Version as "they
offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall . . ."
Gall itself is exceedingly bitter, but what may be meant here is some
form of deadening anesthetic. Mark, indeed, does not mention gall
but describes the incident:
Mark 15:23. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with
myrrh . . .
If Matthew bases his description on what is said in Mark, why does
he change the humane wine and myrrh, clearly intended as a kindly
attempt to anesthetize Jesus and deaden the pain he must suffer, into
the heartless vinegar and gall, which sounds so like an additional tor-
ment? Why needlessly multiply the apparent sins of the crucifiers?
Apparently Matthew introduces vinegar and gall to hark back to a
passage in the Psalms where the psalmist describes his own distress with
poetic exaggeration:
Psalm 69:21. They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my
thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Eli, Eli
Death was not long delayed:
Matthew 27:46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a
loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
It might be suggested that this was the last cry of despair of the
"historic Jesus"— the Galilean carpenter who felt the urge to preach,
convinced himself at last that he was the Messiah, held to this faith
to the last minute, and now— finally— had to realize he was not the
Messiah after all and that the whole of his mission had but brought
him to this horrible death.
Yet it is not likely that Matthew could possibly have thought this
(or Mark, in whom also this dying cry is to be found). Rather, some
Old Testament significance is to be sought.
MATTHEW
895
The cry "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" is the
opening of the 22nd Psalm:
Psalm 22:1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why
art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
It is a quotation that is particularly apt for the occasion, since the
psalmist describes himself (in the King James Version) as in the ex-
treme of despair and as suffering a fate very like cruciSxion:
Psalm 22:16. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the
wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Psalm 22:17. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon
me.
Psalm 22:18. They part my garments among them, and cast lots
upon my vesture.
Matthew describes the literal fulSllment of the poetic description of
the extremity of misfortune in the eighteenth verse and quotes that
verse too, pointing to its fulfillment:
Matthew 27:35. And they crucified him, and parted his garments,
casting lots . . .
The sharpest association of the passage with the crucifixion is the
phrase "they pierced my hands and my feet." The Revised Standard
Version, which keeps the phrase, points out in a footnote that in the
original Hebrew the word which is translated as "pierced" in the Latin
versions of the Bible, actually means "like a lion." In the Jewish version
of the Bible, the sixteenth verse is given ". . . Like a lion, they are
at my hands and my feet." The Jerusalem Bible gives it: ". . . they tie
me hand and foot." One wonders if "pierced" was inserted in transla-
tion as a reference backward from Jesus' exclamation on the cross.
Joseph of Arimathea
After his death, Jesus was buried:
Matthew 27:57. When the even was come, there came a rich
man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus'
disciple:
Matthew 27:58. He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Having obtained the body, he buried it in his own new tomb— dug
into the rock— and placed a great stone in the opening.
The town of Arimathea, the birthplace of this disciple of Jesus,
is not mentioned in the Bible elsewhere, but it is usually identified with
Ramathaim-Zophim, the birthplace of the prophet Samuel (see
page I-267).
Joseph of Arimathea does not appear in the Bible except for this
one deed, and the reputed site of his tomb is now memorialized by
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
Joseph is, however, the subject of a much later legend. He was
supposed to have been the custodian of the cup from which Jesus
urged his disciples to drink in the course of the last supper:
Matthew 26:27. ^nd he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave
it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Matthew 26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament . . .
This cup came to be called the "Holy Grail." Its possession was
supposed to have preserved Joseph of Arimathea through many years
of imprisonment. Eventually he was supposed to have brought the cup
to the town of Glastonbury in southwestern Britain and there it disap-
peared. (These legends were very much elaborated and encouraged
by the monks at the Abbey of Glastonbury.)
Much of the cycle of legend that surrounded Britain's King Arthur
and his knights dealt with the attempts to recover the Holy Grail.
The First Day of the Week
The story of the "historic Jesus" ends here with his burial, for if v.c:
are to eliminate the miraculous, then the tale of the resurrection must
be put down to legend.
If the burial had really been the end in every way, however, it is
very probable that Jesus' disciples would gradually have forgotten their
old teacher, that no new disciples would have gathered in his memory,
and that the history of the world would have been enormously dif-
ferent.
However, even if we take the rationalist view that there was no
resurrection in reality, it cannot be denied that there was one in the
MATTHEW
897
belief of the disciples and, eventually, of hundreds of millions of men
—and that made all the difference.
Matthew describes the priestly authorities as fearing a coup on the
part of Jesus' disciples. They say so to Pilate:
Matthew 27:63. . . . Sir, . . . that deceiver [Jesus] said, while
he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Matthew 27:64. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made
sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal
him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead . . .
The priestly authorities presumably feared that Jesus, even though
dead, might still be used as a rallying cry for a revolt against the
Romans. A resurrection would be faked and used as proof of the
divine Messiah-hood of Jesus. Pilate, also seeing the danger, granted
a contingent of soldiers to guard the tomb.
The belief that Jesus would rise on the third day is given by
Matthew, characteristically, in terms of an Old Testament analogy.
At one point, when Jesus is asked for some sign that he is indeed
a heaven-inspired preacher, Jesus refuses, except to point out one
analogy (found spelled out only in Matthew):
Matthew 12:40. For as fonas [Jonah] was three days and three
nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Now the crucifixion had taken place on a Friday, according to
all four gospels. Thus Matthew says:
Matthew 27:62. Now the next day, that followed the day of
preparation . . .
The "next day" was the day after the crucifixion and it followed
the "day of preparation," which was therefore the day of the crucifix-
ion. By the "day of preparation" is meant the day on which one pre-
pares for the Sabbath. It is the day before the Sabbath (our Saturday)
and, therefore, Friday.
It is for this reason that the crucifixion is commemorated by
Christians on a Friday ("Good Friday").
Then comes the story of the sequel to the crucifixion:
898
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew 28:1. In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week,
Matthew 28:2. . . . there was a great earthquake: for the angel
of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back
the stone from the door . . .
Those guarding the tomb and those coming to mourn are alike
astonished, but the angel addresses the latter:
Matthew 28:5. . . . Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus,
which was crucified.
Matthew 28:6. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said . . .
With the crucifixion taking place on Friday and the resurrection
on Sunday ("the first day of the week") one can suppose that
Jesus remained "in the heart of the earth" three days (Friday, Saturday,
Sunday). However, Matthew's comparison with Jonah's "three days
and three nights" in the whale misses, as so many of Matthew's
quotations do.
Jesus died on Friday at the ninth hour, shortly after he cried out,
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (see page 894) .
This, counting the hours— in the fashion of the time— from sunrise
to sunset, would be about 3 p.m. by the modern scheme of hours.
If Jesus rose at dawn on Sunday, say 6 a.m., then while he was
in the heart of the earth for parts of three different days, he was
there for only two nights and one day.
The fact that the resurrection took place on the first day of the
week (Sunday) gave that day a special significance to the followers
of Christ. It was the "Lord's Day" to be treated with special signif-
icance.
At first, it was distinct from the Sabbath (the Seventh Day, or
Saturday), which the early Christians celebrated in the usual manner.
However, as hostility grew between Christians and Jews, and as the
Christians gathered their numbers more and more from among the
Gentiles, Sunday came to take on the attributes of a Sabbath and
Saturday was abandoned by the Christians altogether.
The anniversary of the particular Sunday on which Jesus was
resurrected is commemorated as Easter Sunday.
MATTHEfl
899
Mary Magdalene
Among the women who watched at the site of the crucifixion was
one called Mary Magdalene:
Matthew 27:55. And many women were there beholding [the
crucifixion] afar off, which followed fesus from Galilee . . .
Matthew 27:56. Among which was Mary Magdalene . . .
She was also present at the grave at dawn on the Sunday following:
Matthew 28:1. In the end of the sabbath . . . came Mary Magda-
lene ... to see the sepulchre.
Mary Magdalene means Mary of Magdala, Magdala being a town
on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee. Its exact location is un-
certain, but it may have been a suburb of Tiberias.
The only reference to Mary Magdalene in the gospels, other than
as a witness of the crucifixion and resurrection, is as a woman cured by
Jesus:
Mark 16:9. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of
the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he
had cast seven devils.
This is said also by Luke, though not in connection with the
resurrection, but with an earlier period while Jesus was still in Galilee:
Luke 8:1. . . . he [Jesus] went throughout every city and village,
preaching . . . and the twelve were with him,
Luke 8:2. And certain women, which had been healed of evU
spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went
seven devils . . .
Mary Magdalene has been considered, in tradition, to have been a
prostitute and to have repented as a result of her meeting with Jesus.
The seven devils might then be considered devils of lust.
This is probably so only because she is mentioned in Luke almcst
immediately after a tale about another woman. This one comes into
Jesus' presence while he is dining with a Pharisee:
900
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Luke 7:37. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a
sinner . . .
Luke 7:38. ... stood at his feet behind him weeping . . .
This sinner was, indeed, a prostitute in all likelihood, but there
is no direct identification, anywhere in the Bible, of this woman
with Mary Magdalene. To be possessed by devils, as Mary Magdalene
was, would be the sign of what we would today call mental illness,
rather than anything else. We might much more reasonably consider
Mary Magadalene a cured madwoman rather than a reformed prosti-
tute.
Nevertheless, the term "magdalen" is now used to refer to a re-
formed prostitute, or to a house for reformed prostitutes. And, since
Mary Magdalene, as a repentant sinner, is always shown in paintings
with her eyes red and swollen with weeping, the word "maudlin"
(the British pronunciation of "magdalen") has come to mean tearfully
or weakly emotional.
The existence of Mary Magdalene may explain a puzzle concerning
the resurrection— why it was believed, and yet not believed.
On the one hand, there seems no question that the disciples accepted
the resurrection and that they continued to preach the doctrines of
Jesus on that basis, so that their successors, after three centuries, won
the empire.
On the other hand, if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, why
was this not the signal for a wild acclamation of the Messiah and
a revolt against Rome, as the authorities feared?
One might reconstruct events something like this. Mary Magdalene
was the first to see the risen Jesus:
Mark 16:9. Now when ]esus was risen early the first day of the
week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had
cast seven devils.
Mark 16: 10. And she went and told them that had been with
him, as they mourned and wept.
Mark 16: 11. And they . . . believed not.
Nevertheless, the tale of Mary Magdalene must eventually have
carried conviction to the mourning disciples, who would, after all,
have wanted fervently to believe that Jesus was indeed the .Messiah
and would rise from the dead.
MATTHEW
901
Once Mary Magdalene's tale of an empty tomb and of a Jesus
who appeared to her was believed, confirming tales would naturally
arise in later times. There would come tales of Jesus having appeared
to this disciple or that, under such circumstances or others, and a
number of them would be recorded in the gospels when these came to
be written. But all might conceivably have rested entirely upon the
word of one witness, Mary Magdalene.
Yet Mary Magdalene had been possessed by "seven devils." She
had been a madwoman or, in any case, seriously disturbed, and her
behavior might have remained erratic enough to give her the reputation
of being "touched." Even if she had shown marked improvement under
Jesus' influence, the shock of the arrest, trial and crucifixion might
well have unhinged her once more and made her an easy target for
hallucination.
Aside from the disciples, who may have accepted her story only after
a while, there might have been no one who would lend it credence.
The people generally would have shrugged off anything she had to
say as the ravings of a madwoman.
It would follow from this that though the disciples might believe
(and more and more fervently as time went on), there would be
no general acceptance of the tale by the people. And there were no
disorders and certainly no revolt against Rome.
The view given in the gospels is, of course, that Jesus did rise,
and he appeared not to Mary Magdalene alone but to a number of
people on several different occasions, walking and talking with them.
Matthew pictures the disciples as returning home after receiving the
tale of the resurrection:
Matthew 28:16. Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee,
into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Matthew 28:18. And Jesus came and spake unto them , . .
To explain the disbelief of the Jews generally, Matthew advances
a rather unlikely tale that is not found in the other gospels. He says
the priestly authorities bribed the guardians of the tomb to say that
they had fallen asleep and that while they slept, Jesus' disciples stole
the body and that Jesus had not really risen.
What makes the tale unlikely is that sleeping while on patrol is
a cardinal sin for soldiers at all times and it is unlikely that the
902
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
guards would have let themselves be bribed into admitting such a
thing. Even though the priests promised to protect them from the
consequences if Pilate heard that they had slept on duty, it is doubtful
that they would have taken the chance.
Nevertheless, that is what Matthew says and he concludes:
Matthew 28:15. So they took the money, and did as they were
taught [instructed]: and this saying is commonly reported among
the Jews until this day.
6. MARK
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MASK • MARK • JOHN THE BAPTIST •
THE UNCLEAN SPIRIT " LEVI THE SON OF ALPHAEUS ' ABIATHA& •
BOANERGES ' LEGION ' TALTTHA CUMI
The Gospel According to St. Mark
It is generally accepted that Mark is the earliest of the four gospels,
and it is certainly the shortest
It has been suggested that this first of the gospels was put into
writing in order to circulate among Christians the story of the sufferings
of Jesus and his steadfastness under affliction. Perhaps this was in
order to encourage Christians at a time when they, generally, were
undergoing persecution.
The first serious persecutions of Christianity were initiated in Rome
by the Emperor Nero after the great fire of aj>. 64 and it is indeed
likely that Mark's gospel may have been written shortly after.
From the fact that Jesus' apocalyptic discourse is included and
the destruction of Jerusalem clearly indicated (see page 87 1 ) , it ii
thought that it might not have been written till after a.d. 66, when
the Jewish rebellion against Rome began. There are even those who
feel the final form was attained only after ad. 70 and the Roman
destruction of the Second Temple. It could not, however, have been
long after aj>. 70, for the gospel must have been in existence and
circulating before Matthew and Luke came to be written— since the
two latter borrowed extensively from Mark.
Mark's gospel seems to have been written for Christians of Jewish
origin, but apparently not for those with extensive knowledge of
Biblical lore. There is none of Matthew's Old Testament pedantry.
Perhaps the writer of Mark was not himself a very educated man— at
least the Greek of the gospel is not very polished.
904
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Mediterranean
Sea
PHOENICIA,
/(ROMAN PROVINCE)
(•Sidon.--'
y—. TP"- -J
ITFTRARCHYT? .
— »is&y
^- f Codasa'
UyKTHA./
'ghuianitis
TRACHONITIS
/ /Jki^ta^ l ^^B<ltai4JWuj BASHAN
5E4 orcbiiitt
Dorot
.>a«wl« .. >X
- alt -J ^ Z'* 1
H£ROOX)fT|f»s)l/| 13?^' •Atl'te
IYOFPHIUP)
■vNofn*
J°rt*jt
AURANITIS
? DEGAK>MS
l tributary
/ Jpmra'a
TO SAlOMt; £ilWT
/ AaUi
«■■»' JSNtojuIis^-;* •' % ■ —
(UNDER ROMAN f
/ / ( UNDO! ROMAN PROCURATOR^
• (» i .N A
Palatine in the Time of Christ
MARK
905
Mark
Papias, the second-century Christian bishop, stated that someone
named Mark had composed a gospel, using information obtained from
Simon Peter himself as his source. It is certain that it is this second
gospel to which he refers.
Apparently Peter did have a younger associate named Mark (or
Marcus, to use the fuller Latin form of the name). He refers to
this man affectionately as one would a disciple or follower, in his first
epistle:
1 Peter 5:13. The church . . . sduteth you; and so doth Marcus
my son.
Nor, despite the Latin name, is Mark a Gentile. Mark appears to be
only a surname added to the Jewish proper name of John (Johanan).
Thus, in Acts:
Acts 12:12. ... he [Peter] came to the house of Mary the
mother of ]ohn, whose surname was Mark . . .
John Mark must have been quite young at the time of the crucifixion
and he does not appear by name in the gospels. There is, however,
one incident described in Mark but not in the other gospels which
may indeed refer to Mark himself. It comes just after the arrest of
Jesus, when his disciples fled. One unidentified person is described as
remaining for a while:
Mark 14:51. And there followed him a certain young man,
having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young
men [who had come to arrest Jesus] laid hold on him:
Mark 14:52. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them
naked.
Nothing follows from this event and the young man does not
reappear. Tradition has it, though, that this young man is Mark
himself, and that the evangelist could not resist mentioning his own
presence at a key point in the story of Jesus.
906
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
John the Baptist
Mark begins his gospel with John the Baptist. He has nothing
to say of the virgin birth in Bethlehem, of any marvels or miracles
relating to Jesus' infancy. He does not even make mention of the
descent from David. In this gospel, Jesus is referred to as the Son of
God (that is, the Messiah) but rarely as the Son of David.
In fact, if we had only the gospel of St. Mark to guide us
to the life of Jesus, we would have to assume that Jesus was bom in
Nazareth after the ordinary fashion of men, into a poor Galilean
family of no royal pretensions.
Such an origin is so out of line with Old Testament prophecies
concerning the Messiah that Matthew may have written his gospel
primarily in order to assert such matters as the Davidic descent and
the birth in Bethlehem. Only so could Jesus be defended against the
claims of Jewish theologians that he could not be the Messiah
because he was of Galilean birth and of non-royal lineage.
In Mark the first mention of Jesus is in connection with his
baptism:
Mark 1:9.. . . in those days, . . . ]esus came from Nazareth . . .
and was baptized of John in Jordan.
and thereafter the Spirit of God descended upon him as in Matthew.
John the Baptist is described as the forerunner (as he is in all the
gospels) and as knowing that to be his function:
Mark 1:7. And [John the Baptist] preached, saying, There
cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes
I am not worth to stoop down and unloose.
In Matthew at the time of Jesus' baptism, John is described as
specifically recognizing Jesus as that mightier one, but there is none
of this in Mark.
The Unclean Spirit
Following the baptism, Mark refers briefly to the episode of the
temptation, but without details, certainly without the Old Testament
MARK
907
quotations that Matthew introduced for the delectation of his learned
audience.
Jesus then chooses his first four disciples and begins his preaching
activity. Mark concentrates heavily on his activities as a miraculous
healer. Thus, at Capemaum:
Mark 1:23. . . . there was in their synagogue a man with an un-
clean spirit . . .
Mark 1:25. And Jesus [said] . . . com« out of him.
Mark 1:26. And . . . the unclean spirit . . . came out of him.
Mark quotes the unclean spirit as crying out at the approach of
Jesus:
Mark 1:24. . . . what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of
Nazareth? ... J know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
Mark uses the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" since there is no in-
dication in this gospel that Jesus was bom anywhere but in Nazareth.
The phrase was well enough known to be adopted in the other
gospels, despite the tale of the birth at Bethlehem. Furthermore, Mark,
who never mentions the Davidic descent, makes use of "Holy One of
God" as a phrase signifying the Messiah, rather than "Son of David."
Levi the son of Alphaeus
Mark records Jesus as selecting a publican for a disciple:
Mark 2:14. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of
Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him,
Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
Matthew tells the same story, but of the disciple Matthew (pre-
sumably the Evangelist himself), and says nothing of the publican
being the son of Alphaeus.
In Matthew's list of the twelve apostles he lists two pairs of
brothers:
Matthew 10:2. . . . Simon . . . Peter, and Andrew his brother;
James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother . . .
908
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
If Levi (or Matthew) were the son of Alphaeus, a third pair of
brothers must be found among the apostles, for there is a second
James, distinguished, as the son of Alphaeus, from James, son of
Zebedee. Ought not Levi (or Matthew) be mentioned together with
James the son of Alphaeus? In the list of apostles, Matthew includes:
Matthew 10:3. . . . Matthew the publican; James the son of
Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.
The pattern in Matthew is that the lesser known brother follows
the better known (or, perhaps, the younger follows the older) and
the father's name is mentioned only for the brother mentioned first
Now Lebbaeus is a Greek form of the name Levi, so that the verse
10:3 might almost seem to include James the son of Alphaeus and
Levi, his brother. Yet there is no mention of the brotherhood; Matthew
is placed on the other side of James; and Matthew seems to go out
of his way to identify himself as "Matthew the publican."
In Mark's list of apostles, brotherhood is less important. Andrew,
for instance, is not identified as the brother of Peter (although he
is so identified at the time both were accepted as disciples). Andrew
is not even placed next to Peter. Mark says:
Mark 3:18. And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, <md
Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thad-
daeus . . .
Matthew is not identified. Yet why would Matthew claim to be
a publican if he were not; the calling was a disgraceful one (see page
167). Or did Matthew wish to emphasize his rise to grace by blacken-
ing his position before that rise?
Abiathar
Mark begins eady to describe the gathering dismay of the orthodox
among the Jews at Jesus' doctrines; at his claim to have the power
to forgive sins and at his cavalier attitude toward the Sabbath (see
page 846) .
In maintaining that the Sabbath might be broken, when necessary,
for the good of men, Jesus pointed out an action of David himself as
MARK
909
a precedent. When David was a fugitive from Saul, and suffering the
pangs of hunger, the high priest at Nob allowed him to use the special
hallowed bread, ordinarily reserved for priests only. Thus human
necessity rose above ritual.
In giving this example, however, Mark made a factual error:
Mark 2:26. . . . he [David] went into the house of God in the
days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread . . .
But it was not Abiathar who was high priest at the time this
incident took place, but Abiathar's father, Ahimelech (see page I-290).
It is an understandable slip, however, for Abiathar was the sole
survivor of the slaughter of the priests at Nob as a result of their having
fed David, and Abiathar was closely connected with David through-
out the latter's subsequent reign. It would be almost second nature
for a Jew of New Testament times to think of Abiathar in connection
with King David.
Matthew and Luke both repeat this story, but neither mentions
the name of the high priest, thus avoiding the slip.
Boanerges
In Mark's list of the twelve apostles, an interesting addition is a
surname given to the sons of Zebedee:
Mark 3:17. And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother
of James; and he [Jesus] surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The
sons of thunder . . .
Boanerges is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic "benai regesh,"
which means "sons of anger." This may represent a tradition to the
effect that James and John were fiery in temper and always ready
to take angry action.
A clear example of this is to be found in Luke. There, when
Jesus was rebuffed by Samaritans who would not allow him to enter
one of their villages, James and John demand retaliation:
Luke 9:54. And when his disciples James and John saw this,
they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down
from heaven, and consume tliem, even as Elias [Elijah] did?
910 ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The reference here is to a tale of Elijah, who, when fifty soldiers
came to arrest him in the time of Ahaziah, king of Israel, used fire from
heaven in his defense:
2 Kings 1:10. And Elijah answered and said to the captain of
fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from
heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down
fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
Jesus, however, rebuked his wrathful disciples:
Luke 9:56. . . .the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives,
but to save them . . .
Legion
In Mark's telling of the casting out of devils in the country of the
Gadarenes or Gergesenes (see page 839) , he has Jesus speaking to the
possessing devils:
Mark 5:9. And he [Jesus] asked him [the possessing spirit],
What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion:
for we are many.
Legion is capitalized in the King James Version, and in the Revised
Standard Version as welL as though it were a proper name, the name
of the inhabiting spirit
Actually 'legion" is the name given to the principal unit of the
Roman army and is from a Latin word meaning "to gather together."
A legion is a group of soldiers "gathered together." In New Testa-
ment times, a legion consisted of some six thousand soldiers, and the
word could therefore be used to indicate a great number. The state-
ment "My name is Legion: for we are man/' is equivalent to saying,
There are thousands of us."
And, indeed, the spirits are then sent into thousands of swine:
Mark 5:13. . . . the unclean spirits . . . entered into the swine:
. . . (they were about two thousand;) . . •
MARK
911
Talitha cumi
Mark's account of Jesus' life and death is so like Matthew's in
essentials that there remains little to say that has not been said
in the previous chapter. One interesting point might be mentioned:
For all that Mark seems to have written in Greek, it is closer
to the Aramaic even than Matthew. In fact, part of the imperfection
of the Greek of this gospel seems to be that it contains numerous
Aramaic forms of expression, literally translated, as though Mark were
writing in Greek, but thinking in Aramaic.
Oftener than in the other gospels, Mark gives the actual Aramaic
and then translates it, as in the case of "Boanerges." Another example
arises in the case of the young daughter of a synagogue official—
a girl whom Jesus raises from the dead. All three synoptic gospels tell
of this miracle, but only Mark reports Jesus' words, on raising the
girl, in the native Aramaic:
Mark 5:41. And he [Jesus] took the damsel by the hand, and
said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel,
I say unto thee, arise.
At another time, Mark reports Jesus' curing of a deaf man with a
speech impediment:
Mark 7:34. And looking up to heaven, he [Jesus] sighed, and
saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
And still again, at Gethsemane, when Jesus prays, addressing God
as "Father," the Aramaic word is given first:
Mark 14:36. And he [Jesus] said, Abba, Father, all things are
possible unto thee; take away this cup from me . . .
7. LUKE
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE 1 LUKE • THEOPHILUS ' ZACHARIAS •
ELISABETH ' MARY • JOHN THE BAPTIST * CAESAR AUGUSTUS ' CYRENIUS "
BETHLEHEM * CHRISTMAS * SIMEON ' THE DOCTORS ' TIBERIUS CAESAR *
THE SON OF JOSEPH • JUDAS THE BROTHER OF JAMES " THE CENTURION •
THE GOOD SAMARITAN * LAZARUS THE BEGGAR • A FAR COUNTRY ■ HEROD
ANTTPAS " THE CRUCIFIXION
The Gospel According to St. Luke
The third and last of the synoptic gospels seems, like that of
St. Matthew, to have been based largely on the gospel of St. Mark,
but with additional matter included.
Luke is therefore certainly later than Mark, and is probably later
than Matthew as well. Scholars generally seem to agree that Luke
was written some time after the crucial year, ajj. 70, when Jerusalem
was taken and the Temple destroyed by the Romans. Some have
even suggested dates as late as ax>. 100, though ax>. 80 would be more
generally acceptable.
If Luke is later than Matthew, it nevertheless seems to have been
written independently. The additional matter included in Luke, be-
yond what is found in Mark, is for the most part quite different from
the additional matter found in Matthew.
Partly, this may have arisen out of a difference in intent.
Suppose we begin with the gospel of St. Mark, the earliest of
the synoptics, and view it for what it seems to be— the simple story
of a prophet and wonder-worker who is viewed by the author as the
Messiah, and who is wrongfully accused and executed but triumphantly
restored to life. The story as told by Mark is intended for the ordinary
Christian of Jewish background.
Matthew, in his rewriting of this gospel, added material designed
LUKE
9B
PHOENICIA i
/..- ITtTRARCMrg
-OF IYXAKMS/
Mediterranean
Sba,
ROMAN PROWNCE) /rWP' '
>J t S PANIAS
5. -i* A>SE*
ft
Djrtuwus
• Ti/rc
\
TKACHONinS
' Rttpiim
Ptolemisl
MZStMEtHONITlS
•'■/-GAL/ LE E tf . .•■ v*^ 0 " 4 ??-?
/JOM'o J. w iTi%«ttsiiiiJiili8 / BASHAN
/ - 7itfol)lM y^yCitnisO y ■ • (1ETRARCHVOFPHIUPJ
/ CmfoitoMiJ ^-r....>S»wta .. /
r ^ nc tinier .■ t .-*s' .
Dora
Cmomf
»^yN HEROBAPIIIPAS)-,)! h|^' ^ ■•Ah/,? S*.^
RANITIS /
/
'DECAPODS
.(.UNDER ROMAN PROCURATOR)
,-.y. „ • W „
AftHimiaL
'.Sebititt^iidmaniiW X. z $ Ambus ■ r
N^saS^^ „ touch's? PEnAEA/j/
" ^V'f )^^\
^ ^. \ AMMON
/ AN
ITRIBUTARV / S *™ 1 ? I .
r> sau>m« Uron V> Niowlis • ; ' : f
, „ • / >. ' ' — ^— ^ — ^- •
/ ^AwRROMAN PROCURATOR' S
WWIrtu ;' /IDUMAEA :
.NABATXeA NTS
itA / ..-^•s ^ >
Palestine in the Time of Christ
914
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
(in his view) to fit it for the ears of those learned in Old Testament
lore, by interlarding it with many references to Biblical prophecies
and, for the purpose, making use of such legends concerning Jesus
as were common at the time and would lend themselves to such
prophecies.
Luke, on the other hand, rewrote Mark's gospel in a way to make
it fit, particularly, for the ears of Gentiles who are sympathetic to
Christianity and are considering conversion— or perhaps are already
converted and wish to know still more concerning the background to
their new religion. Old Testament prophecies are largely ignored by
Luke as unessential and the Jews are cast more clearly in the role of
villains than they are in Matthew and Mark. The Roman authorities
are treated more gently than in the first two gospels, and Jesus himself
is portrayed as far more sympathetic to Gentiles in Luke than in the
other synoptic gospels.
Luke
It is widely considered that Luke was himself a Gentile, though
none of the evidence is conclusive. His name is Roman, for Luke
("Loukas" in Greek and "Lucas" in Latin) is a shortened version
of either Lucius or Lucanus, both good Roman names. This, in itself,
settles nothing, of course, for Roman names were sometimes adopted
by Jews in New Testament times. Paul is a Roman name, but the
apostle Paul was certainly Jewish.
Then, too, the Greek in which Luke is written is judged to be
of significantly greater literary value than that of either Matthew or
Mark (and indeed the superiority of Luke seems evident to most even
in English translation) so that the author is judged to have had a
thorough Greek education. This increases the possibility that he was
a Gentile, though it still doesn't make it certain.
We can search for more hints in the fact that the same author
who wrote Luke almost certainly wrote the Acts of the Apostles as
well, the book in which the events of the decades following the
crucifixion are given, particularly matters concerning the travels of the
Apostle Paul.
There are indications that the writer of Acts was actually a com-
LUKE
915
panion of Paul who accompanied him on his travels. Thus, at one
point Paul is described as seeing the vision of a man in Macedonia
crying for help:
Acts 16:10. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we
endeavoured to go into Macedonia . . .
It may be that the writer of Acts has suddenly switched to a
quotation from Paul's memoirs, without indicating the fact. (The con-
ventions about the use of quotation marks are modem, of course.)
It seems more reasonable, however, to suppose that the use of "we"
means that the writer was one of Paul's entourage who tried with
him to arrange for passage to Macedonia.
But who might this companion be? Persons particularly close to
Paul are mentioned by him several times in his letters. Thus, in
the Epistle to the Colossians, Paul brings his letter to a close by
sending greetings from those around him:
Colossians 4:14. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demos, greet
you.
It is usually assumed that Luke was Paul's personal doctor, and the
nature of the post alone would assure a close connection of the two
throughout Paul's arduous travels. In the Second Epistle to Timothy,
Paul specifically states:
2 Timothy 4:10. ... Demos hath forsaken me, having loved
this present world . . .
2 Timothy 4:11. Only Luke is with me . . .
thus indicating the particular close fidelity of his physician. Luke is
also mentioned in the closing of the Epistle to Philemon as one of
those from whom greeting is sent.
The tradition is that it is this Luke who was author of both the
third gospel and Acts. This tradition dates back to Irenaeus, a bishop
who served in Gaul about ax». 170.
That still doesn't help us decide whether Luke was Jewish or
Gentile.
Yet the Book of Acts seems to deal with Antioch in a particularly
detailed manner, as though the author were well acquainted with
church matters there. The Christians at Antioch were largely of Gentile
916
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
background (there were relatively few Jews there) and if Luke was a
member of the church of that city, the chances are good that he was a
Gentile. An early church father, Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote a history
of the Church in a.d 324, and he considered Luke to have been a
citizen of Antioch of Syrian extraction. This is the tradition generally
accepted.
And yet there is a verse in Acts that lists some of the members of
the church at Antioch:
Acts 13:1. Now there were in the church that was at Antioch
certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was
called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene . . .
Can Lucius of Cyrene be the Luke of the Pauline epistles? This has
been suggested by some. But Cyrene was an important Jewish center
and if Luke were a native of Cyrene rather than of Antioch, the
chance that he was Jewish is materially increased.
On the whole, the best evidence in favor of Luke's Gentile origin
is his writing itself and its sympathetic attitude toward Gentiles.
Theophilus
Luke begins his gospel in approved Greek fashion by addressing
the person for whom it is intended:
Luke 1:3. It seemed good to me also ... to write unto thee
in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luke 1 14. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.
This sounds as though Luke were attempting to further the con-
version of some specific Greek. Absolutely nothing is known about
this prospective convert, but it is usually supposed that he was of good
family since Luke refers to him as "most excellent."
Some have suggested that Theophilus was an official of the Roman
court that was trying the Apostle Paul, and that the gospel of St. Luke
was in the nature of a brief for the defense, prepared by Paul's close
friend and associate. It was intended to acquaint the court with the
fact that Paul was not a traitor to Rome but a messenger from God.
LUKE 917
There are also suggestions that Theophflus (the name means "one
who loves God") was not a person at all but represented, allegorically,
potential converts generally.
Zacharias
Luke was under no illusion that he was to write the first biography
of Jesus, for he was well aware that a number of such biographies
already existed. There was Mark, for one, and perhaps a number that
were never accepted as canonical and have since been lost:
Luke 1:1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in
order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed
among us . . .
It may well have been, though, that if he was not the first in
the field, he intended to be most complete. Mark began with the
baptism of Jesus by John, at a time when Jesus was already a grown
man, and ends with the resurrection. Matthew goes back to Jesus'
birth, but in Luke we go further back still to the birth of John the
Baptist
The purpose, here, may have been to make it perfectly clear that
John was a subsidiary element, a forerunner, and one who clearly
recognized his own role as a mere herald of the greater man to follow.
This may have been particularly important in the light of the doctri-
nal disputes in decades immediately following the crucifixion, when the
followers of John the Baptist maintained for some time a tradition that
was apparently independent of the followers of Jesus. Thus, in Acts,
a newcomer is introduced as follows:
Acts 18:24. • • • a certain few named Apollos . . . came to
Ephesus.
Acts 18:25. • • • knowing only the baptism of John.
He was apparently a follower of the doctrines of John the Baptist
who, however, knew of Jesus and quickly joined the followers of
Jesus.
Luke, therefore, begins with Zacharias, the father of John the
Baptist, an individual not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament:
918
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Luke 1:5. There was in the days of Herod . . . a certain priest
named Zacharias, of the course of Abia [Abijah] . . .
The priesthood was divided into twenty-four divisions or "courses,"
each of which served a week at the Temple so that a given man served
for one week at a time, twice each year. These twenty-four courses
are each named for an ancestor of Aaronic descent and these are
listed in 1 Chronicles. Among them are:
1 Chronicles 24:10. The seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to
Abijah . . .
Zacharias was thus a priest of the eighth course.
Elisabeth
The mother of John the Baptist is also introduced:
Luke 1:5. . . . and his [Zacharias'] wife was of the daughters of
Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Elisabeth ("Eleisabet" in Greek) is a good Aaronic name, since
it is equivalent to the Hebrew "Elisheba," which was the name of
Aaron's wife:
Exodus 6:23. And Aaron took him Elisheba . . . to wife . . .
The couple were childless and, as they were advanced in years,
it seemed as though that state might be permanent. Elisabeth shared
this fate with a number of women in the Old Testament: Sarah, the
wife of Abraham; Rachel, the wife of Jacob; the unnamed wife of
Manoah; and Hannah, the wife of Elkanah. In each of the cases
mentioned, the barrenness was ended through divine intervention and
a notable son was bom: Isaac, Joseph, Samson, and Samuel, respec-
tively. The story of Elisabeth follows these earlier models.
Zacharias takes his turn at service in the Temple, in a year not
specified. The angel Gabriel appears to him, just as an angel appeared
to the wife of Manoah. Zacharias is told he will have a son in terms
that echo, in part, the words of the earlier tale concerning the wife
of Manoah. Shortly thereafter, Elisabeth did indeed become pregnant.
LUKE
919
Mary
The story now shifts to the future mother of Jesus:
Luke 1:26. And in the sixth month [of Elisabeth's pregnancy]
the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named
Nazareth,
Luke 1:27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:28. And the angel . . . said . . .
Luke 1:31. . . . behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke stresses the fact that Mary is a virgin, but this is by no
means as clear a statement of the virgin birth as is to be found in
Matthew. Mary, although a virgin at the time of this "annunciation,"
was engaged to be married, and Gabriel's words might be taken as
meaning that she would conceive after her marriage with Joseph had
been consummated, and in the ordinary manner of conception.
To be sure, the story goes on:
Luke 1:34. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be,
seeing I know not a man?
It is an odd question, considering that she is about to be married,
unless, as some commentators suggest, she intends to be a perpetual
virgin, even if she marries. (However, Luke doesn't say so.) Another
possibility is that Mary conceived at the instant of the annunciation
and therefore while she was still a virgin. Yet Gabriel in answering
Mary's question uses the future tense:
Luke 1:35. And the angel answered . . . , The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee . . .
Though it is hard to say that Luke declares the virgin birth
unequivocally and— if Luke is read alone— it is easy to argue that a
virgin birth is not intended, still Christians generally accept Luke's tale
of the annunciation as signifying Jesus' birth of a virgin.
Gabriel also told Mary the news concerning Elisabeth:
920
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Luke i : 36. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also con-
ceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with
her . . .
Mary hastened to visit her cousin ("the visitation"). When she en-
tered the house of Zacharias, Elisabeth greeted her at once:
Luke 1:42. And she [Elisabeth] spake out with a loud voice,
and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of
thy womb.
The first part of her greeting is a duplicate of the last part of the
greeting given Mary by Gabriel:
Luke 1:28. And the angel . . . said, Hail, thou that art highly
favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
In the Revised Standard Version, the greeting of Gabriel begins
"Hail, O favored one" and in the Catholic version, "Hail, full of
gTace."
There is a tendency to think that the phrase "blessed art thou
among women" was accidentally transferred from Elisabeth to Gabriel
in the copying process. It is for this reason that the Revised Standard
Version omits it in Gabriel's greeting.
By combining the two greetings and adding the name of the person
greeted and the name of the child who is to be the fruit of Mary's
womb, we have "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus." The first two words of this greeting, in Latin, are "Ave, Maria"
and this greeting is the famous prayer of that name which is so
prominent in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Elisabeth's reference to the fruit of Mary's womb is in the present
tense, which may mean that the evangelist considers Mary to be al-
ready pregnant. If so, this is the strongest evidence for the virgin
birth in Luke.
Yet one can't help but wonder if the legend of the visitation was
not chosen by Luke for inclusion in his gospel primarily because it
offered a chance to demonstrate that John the Baptist recognized Jesus'
priority and transcendent importance even in the womb. He has
Elisabeth say to Mary:
LUKE 921
Luke 1:44. ... as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded
in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
This would be a strong point for the followers of Jesus and against
the competing followers of John.
In the course of the visit of Mary to Elisabeth, Mary chants a
hymn of praise to God which begins:
Luke 1 46. And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord . . .
The hymn is very much like that ascribed to Hannah on the occasion
of her giving birth to Samuel, and is widely considered to be inspired
by it.
Actually, it is Elisabeth, rather than Mary, whose case was like Han-
nah's. It was Elisabeth who, like Hannah, was barren for many years
despite marriage, and it was Elisabeth who, like Hannah, had been
blessed with conception by God and with vindication in a society that
considered barrenness a punishment for sin.
It is to be expected, then, that the hymn, which follows immediately
after Elisabeth's greeting to Mary, should be intoned by Elisabeth
rather than Mary. In some old manuscripts, indeed, Luke 1:46 reads,
"And she said, My soul doth magnify the Lord," where "she" might
refer to Elisabeth as easily as to Mary. Perhaps the transfer of the
prayer from Elisabeth to Mary is part of the victory of the disciples of
Jesus over those of John in the decades when the gospels were written.
The fust phrase of the song is, in Latin, "Magnificat anima mea
Dominum" and it is therefore referred to as the "Magnificat."
Mary remained with Elisabeth three months, presumably till the
birth of Elisabeth's child. Then she returned home.
Luke's choice of legends that centered on Mary rather than, as in
Matthew's case, on Joseph, might be significant. The Gentiles knew
of goddesses, and their pagan religions often had a strongly feminine
cast. If Luke were a Gentile, he would be drawn to the tales of
Mary. Matthew, on the other hand, a product of the strongly patri-
archal Jewish culture, would automatically deal with Joseph.
Luke's preoccupation with Mary has led to the legend that he knew
her personally and learned of the story of Jesus' birth from her in her
old age. There is also a tradition to the effect that Luke was an artist
and painted a portrait of Mary which was later found in Jerusalem.
Such traditions are supported by nothing more than pious belief.
922
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
John the Baptist
When Elisabeth's child was bom, it was expected he was to be
named Zacharias like his father. That Luke should seriously maintain
this:
Luke 1:59. . . . they [kinsmen] came to circumcise the child;
and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
is an odd departure from Jewish custom. There is no case in the Bible
of a child named for a living father, and it is certainly unheard of for
pious Jews to do so today. Perhaps this is the kind of lapse one might
expect of a Gentile, as Luke is considered to be.
In any case, Elisabeth objected:
Luke 1:60. And his mother . . . said, Not so; but he shall be
called John.
Zacharias agreed to this and then intoned a hymn of praise:
Luke 1:67. And . . . Zacharias . . . prophesied, saying,
Luke 1 :68. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited
and redeemed his people . . .
The first word of this hymn is, in Latin, "Benedictus" and it is by
that name that the entire hymn is known.
Zacharias does not appear again in Luke, or anywhere else in the
Bible. Some early commentators suggested that the reference by Jesus
to Zacharias son of Barachias who was "slain between the temple and
the altar" (see page 869) was a reference to the father of John the
Baptist. This, however, is almost certainly not so, and the Bible makes
no reference whatsoever to the death of John's father.
Caesar Augustus
It is now time for Luke to turn to Mary again and recount the
tale of the birth of Jesus. There is no sure indication in what is to
follow of the time that has elapsed between the birth of John the
LUKE 923
Baptist and the birth of Jesus. Luke merely uses a conventionally in-
definite phrase:
Luke 2:1. And it came to pass in those days . . .
Of course, if Mary's pregnancy followed hard on the annunciation,
which came in the sixth month of Elisabeth's pregnancy, then Jesus
had to be born just six months after John the Baptist, assuming both
pregnancies to have lasted nine months.
But even if this were so and Jesus were half a year younger than
John, in what year were both bom?
Matthew says only that Jesus was bora "in the days of Herod the
king" (see page 783) , which sets an extreme time limit between 37 B.C.
and 4 b.c. Luke, the Gentile, dates the birth by the Gentile emperor
and not by the Jewish king:
Luke 2:1. And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a
decree from Caesar Augustus . . .
Caesar Augustus was bom in 63 B.C., in the very year in which
Judea was converted into a Roman province by Pompey (see page 784) .
His name at birth was Caius Octavius; he was the grandnephew of
Julius Caesar, and, eventually, that general's adopted heir. When Julius
Caesar was assassinated in 44 b.c., Caius Octavius came to Rome to
receive his inheritance and changed his name to Caius Julius Caesar
Octavianus. At this period in his life he is best known in history as
Octavian.
Octavian was a nineteen-year-old boy, sickly and of unimpressive ap-
pearance. Hie most powerful man in Rome at the time was Mark
Antony. For fourteen years the two men fought a civil war against
each other, sometimes a hot war of spears and swords, sometimes a
cold one of propaganda and maneuver. Octavian was immeasurably
the greater man of the two and in 30 b.c. the defeated Mark Antony
killed himself. Octavian was then sole and absolute ruler of Rome.
Octavian was Imperator ("Commander") of the army, an old title,
but one which came to be associated particularly with him and his
successors. In English this has been corrupted to Emperor, so that
Octavian became the first Roman Emperor and the government over
which he and his successors presided came to be known as the Roman
Empire.
In 27 b.c. he was voted the title "Augustus" meaning "undertaken
924
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
under favorable auguries" or, which is the same thing, "well-omened."
He is commonly known to history by that name.
The period during which Augustus ruled in Rome and Herod in
Jerusalem— the period during which Jesus must have been born accord-
ing to Matthew and Luke— was from 27 b.c. and 4 b.c.
In 27 b.c. Augustus closed the Temple of Janus, a move indicating
the coming of peace over the vast area that marked the Roman realm.
This was a notable event, for this had taken place in only four or five
brief periods prior to Augustus' time during all the seven warlike cen-
turies in which the dominion of Rome, had gradually spread from a
single city to all the Mediterranean world.
The period of peace that began with Augustus' rule lasted for
centuries (the "pax Romana" or "Roman peace"). The Mediter-
ranean world had never seen so long a period of peace before Augustus'
time, or, for that matter, since.
It is sometimes stated that the beginning of this period of peace
was a particularly appropriate time for Jesus to be bom. To those who
accept the divine ordering of human affairs, it seems easy to assume
that matters were deliberately arranged in order that a profound peace
should fall over all the world in preparation for the birth of the
"Prince of Peace."
This, however, is a view that is more romantic than justified. To be
sure, there was peace in the settled regions of the empire (including
Judea), where peace had been conspicuously absent in the preceding
century, and, to be sure, this is not a matter to be lightly dismissed.
The peace, however, was not universal.
All through Augustus' reign and, therefore, all through the period
of Jesus' birth and youth, the Roman boundaries to the north were
aflame. Augustus was pushing the boundaries of the empire to the
Danube and eastward across Germany. For the barbarous tribes south
of the Danube and west of the Elbe, there was no peace.
Cyrenius
The period of Jesus' birth might be narrowed by considering the
reference to the nature of the decree of Caesar Augustus:
Luke 2:1. . . . a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world
should be taxed.
LUKE 925
Luke 2:2. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenim was
governor of Syria.)
Cyrenius was indeed an important Roman official in the time of
Augustus. His name was Quirinius, actually, which became "Kyrinios"
in Greek and "Cyrenius" in English. The Revised Standard Version
restores it to the Latin "Quirinius."
Quirinius was in charge of Roman military affairs in Syria, an office
which placed him over the legions in Judea as well, on two different
occasions: from 6 to 4 b.c. and from aj>. 6 to 9. All commentators
agree that Jesus could not have been born as late as ad. 6 to 9 and
that the incidents surrounding Jesus' birth, if they took place while
Quirinius was governor of Syria, had to take place during his first
term, from 6 to 4 b.c. This would certainly harmonize Luke's account
with Matthew's, at least in this respect
During Quirinius' second administration, there was (according to
Josephus) a census initiated for the purpose of determining some
fair basis for the assessment of a special tax.
In ancient times, censuses were generally instituted with either taxa-
tion or military enrollment in mind, and this was never popular in
either case. Even in the time of David himself, a census was viewed
with hostility (see page 800) and, in post-Exilic times, was looked
back upon as having been brought about through nothing less than
Satanic inspiration:
1 Chronicles 21:1. And Satan stood up against Israel, and pro-
voked David to number Israel.
A Judea which thought of a census with such hostility even when
carried through by its great king David was not likely to view with
equanimity one that was initiated by a group of Gentile oppressors.
Nevertheless, such a census was an obvious necessity in Quirinius'
second administration. Herod Archelaus had just been deposed as
ethnarch (see page 138) and now Judea was under direct Roman
rule. As long as Judea had been under some native ruler under native
laws, Rome might have been willing to have its taxes collected in any
fashion that pleased the ruler— provided only he turned over an ade-
quate amount to Rome. Once Rome was in direct charge, however,
things would have to be done systematically and the first step would
be a census, numbering the people and their possessions.
92b
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
From our point of view, this is an enlightened measure and one
that would work in favor of the common people, for Augustus ruled
well and enforced a surprising amount of honesty in provincial govern-
ment. Unfortunately the purpose of a census and its honest intent
could not easily be explained. The Jews (and all the peoples of the
east) knew only too well of corrupt governments and gouging tax
collectors. The only way in which individuals could save themselves
from utter ruin when the tax collector came round was by a combina-
tion of cheating and bribery. A census that would expose their actual
belongings and place the collector under an obligation to collect a
known amount would deprive them of their chance of wiggling their
way out of some of the tax.
It is not surprising, then, that there was wild rioting over Judea
when the Romans began to carry through their census. Luke even
mentions such rioting in Acts:
Acts 5:37. . . . Judas of Galilee [rose up] in the days of the
taxing, and drew away much people after him . . .
The riots were put down bloodily, of course, and the census was
carried through. The memory remained green for decades afterward
and it is not surprising that Luke used it as a landmark for the birth
of Jesus.
This particular census in Quirinius' second administration is not,
however, an accurate landmark. Jesus could not have been born as
late as that; he had to be bom in Quirinius' first administration and
unfortunately we have no records of any census carried through in that
time.
It has been suggested that there was indeed a census carried through
in 6 b.c. in Quirinius' first administration. At that time, the suggestion
has it, Herod ruled over Judea and he might have carried the census
through in accordance with Jewish custom. There would then be no
disorders and nothing for Josephus to remark upon.
This is conceivable, but it seems most unlikely and no one would
dream of suggesting such a thing except for the necessity of justifying
the reference in the gospel of St. Luke. Herod was not a popular ruler
with the Jewish nationalists. The latter considered him, as an Idumean,
to be just as foreign as the Romans. It passes the bounds of belief to
suppose that a Herodian census would have been carried through
without disorders.
LUKE
927
Bethlehem
One might suppose, instead, that Luke made use of the well-re-
membered census merely as a landmark by which to date the approxi-
mate time of birth of Jesus, as Matthew used the star of Bethlehem
(see page 790) . The Biblical writers are rarely concerned with exact
dating, in any case, and find other matters of more importance.
But there is a chance that more was involved. We might argue
that Luke was faced with a serious difficulty in telling the tale of Jesus'
birth and that he had decided to use the census as a device to get out
of that difficulty.
In Mark, the earliest of the gospels, Jesus appears only as Jesus of
Nazareth. To Mark, as nearly as we can tell from his gospel, the
Messiah was a Galilean by birth, bom in Nazareth.
Yet this could not be accepted by Jews learned in the Scriptures.
Jesus of Nazareth had to be bom in Bethlehem in order to be the
Messiah. The prophet Micah was considered to have said so specifically
(see page I-653) and the evangelist Matthew accepts that in his gospel
(see page 794) .
In order to make the birth at Bethlehem (made necessary by theologi-
cal theory) consistent with the known fact of life at Nazareth, Matthew
made Joseph and Mary natives of Bethlehem who migrated to Nazareth
not long after Jesus' birth (see page 801) .
Luke, however, did not have access to Matthew's version, apparently,
and it did not occur to him to make use of so straightforward a device.
Instead, he made Joseph and Mary dwellers in Nazareth before the
birth of Jesus, and had them travel to Bethlehem just in time to have
Jesus bom there and then had them return.
That Mary, at least, dwelt in Nazareth, and perhaps had even been
bom there, seems plain from the fact that Gabriel was sent there to
make the annunciation:
Luke 1:26. . . . the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city
of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luke 1:27. To a virgin [whose] . . . name was Mary.
But if that were so, why should Mary, in her last month of pregnancy,
make the difficult and dangerous seventy-mile overland journey to
928
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Bethlehem
LUKE
929
Bethlehem? Luke might have said it was done at Gabriel's orders, but
he didn't. Instead, with literary economy, he made use of the land-
mark of Jesus' birth for the additional purpose of having Jesus bom at
Bethlehem. Once Caesar Augustus had issued his decree commanding
the census in advance of taxation:
Luke 2:3. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
Luke 2:4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the
city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto . . . Bethlehem; (because he
was of the house and lineage of David:)
Luke 2:5. To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great
with child.
Though this device has much to be said for it from the standpoint of
literary economy, it has nothing to be said for it in the way of
plausibility. The Romans couldn't possibly have conducted so queer
a census as that. Why should they want every person present in the
town of his ancestors rather than in the town in which he actually
dwelt? Why should they want individuals traveling up and down the
length of the land, clogging the roads and interfering with the life of
the province? It would even have been a military danger, for the
Parthians could find no better time to attack than when Roman troops
would find it hard to concentrate because of the thick crisscrossing of
civilians on their way to register.
Even if the ancestral town were somehow a piece of essential in-
formation, would it not be simpler for each person merely to state
what that ancestral town was? And even if, for some reason, a person
had to travel to that ancestral town, would it not be sufficient for the
head of the household or some agent of his to make the trip? Would
a wife have to come along? Particularly one that was in the last month
of pregnancy?
No, it is hard to imagine a more complicated tissue of implausibilities
and the Romans would certainly arrange no such census.
Those who maintain that there was an earlier census in 6 b.c. or
thereabouts, conducted under the auspices of Herod, suggest that one
of the reasons this early census went off quietly was precisely because
Herod ran things in the Jewish fashion, according to tribes and house-
holds. Even if Herod were a popular king (which he wasn't) it is
difficult to see how he could have carried through a quiet census by
requiring large numbers of people to tramp miles under the dangerous
930
ASIMOv's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
and primitive conditions of travel of the times. All through their
history, the Jews had rebelled for far smaller reasons than the declara-
tion of such a requirement.
It is far easier to believe that Luke simply had to explain the birth
of Jesus in Bethlehem for theological reasons, when it was well known
that he was brought up in Nazareth. And his instinct for drama over-
came any feelings he might have had for plausibility.
Judging by results, Luke was right. The implausibility of his story
has not prevented it from seizing upon the imagination of the Christian
world, and it is this second chapter of the gospel of St. Luke that is
the epitome of the story of the Nativity and the inspiration of countless
tales and songs and works of art.
Christmas
In Bethlehem, according to Luke's account, Mary gave birth:
Luke 2:7. And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son and
wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; be-
cause there was no room for them in the inn.
Presumably the inn was full of travelers, as all inns in Judea must
have been at that time, if Luke's story of the census is accepted. Every
town, after all, would have been receiving its quota of families return-
ing from elsewhere.
There is no indication at all at this point concerning the date of the
Nativity. The feast is celebrated, now, by almost all Christian churches
on December 25. This is Christmas ("Christ's mass").
But why December 25? No one really knows. To Europeans and
North Americans such a date means winter and, in fact, many of our
carols depict a wintry scene and so do our paintings. Indeed, so close is
the association of winter and snow that each year millions irrationally
long for a "white Christmas" though snow means a sharp rise in auto-
mobile fatalities.
Yet upon what is such wintry association based? There is no mention
of either snow or cold in either Luke or Matthew. In fact, in the verse
after the description of the birth, Luke says:
Luke 2:8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding
in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
LUKE
931
It is customary, since we have the celebration firmly fixed on Decem-
ber 25, to imagine these shepherds as keeping their watch in bitter
cold and perhaps in deep snow.
But why? Surely it is much more likely that a night watch would be
kept in the summertime when the nights would be mild and, in fact,
more comfortable than the scorching heat of the day. For that matter,
it is but adding still another dimension to the implausible nature of
the census as depicted by Luke if we suppose that all this unneces-
sary traveling was taking place in the course of a cold winter time.
To be sure, it is a mistake to think of a Palestinian winter as being
as cold as one in Germany, Great Britain, or New England. The usual
associations of Christmas with snow and ice— even if it were on Decem-
ber 25— is purely a local prejudice. It falls in the same class with the
manner that medieval artists depicted Mary and Joseph in medieval
clothing because they could conceive of no other kind.
Nevertheless, whether December 25 is snowy or mild makes no dif-
ference at the moment. The point is that neither Luke nor Matthew
give a date of any kind for the Nativity. They give no slightest hint
that can be used to deduce a day or even guess at one.
Why, then, December 25? The answer might be found in astronomy
and in Roman history.
The noonday Sun is at varying heights in the sky at different seasons
of the year because the Earth's axis is tipped by 23 degrees to the plane
of Earth's revolution about the Sun. Without going into the astronomy
of this in detail, it is sufficient to say that the noonday Sun climbs
steadily higher in the sky from December to June, and falls steadily
lower from June to December. The steady rise is easily associated
with a lengthening day, an eventually warming temperature and quick-
ening of life; the steady decline with a shortening day, an eventually
cooling temperature and fading of life.
In primitive times, when the reason for the cycle was not understood
in terms of modem astronomy, there was never any certainty that the
sinking Sun would ever turn and begin to rise again. Why should it do
so, after all, except by the favor of the gods? And that favor might
depend entirely upon the proper conduct of a complicated ritual
known only to the priests.
It must have been occasion for great gladness each year, then, to
observe the decline of the noonday Sun gradually slowing, then coming
to a halt and beginning to rise again. The point at which the Sun comes
932
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to a halt is the winter "solstice" (from Latin words meaning "sun-
halt").
The time of the winter solstice was the occasion for a great feast in
honor of what one might call the "birth of the Sun."
In Roman times, a three-day period, later extended to seven days,
was devoted to the celebration of the winter solstice. This was the
"Saturnalia," named in honor of Satum, an old Roman god of agricul-
ture.
At the Saturnalia, joy was unrestrained, as befitted a holiday that
celebrated a reprieve from death and a return to life. All public business
was suspended, in favor of festivals, parties, singing, and gift-giving.
It was a season of peace and good will to all men. Even slaves were,
for that short period, allowed license that was forbidden at all other
times and were treated— temporarily— on a plane of equality with their
masters. Naturally, the joy easily turned to the extremes of licentious-
ness and debauchery, and there were, no doubt, many pious people
who deplored the uglier aspects of the festival.
In the Roman calendar— a very poor and erratic one before the
time of Julius Caesar— the Saturnalia was celebrated the seventeenth,
eighteenth, and nineteenth of December. Once Caesar established a
sensible calendar, the winter solstice fell upon December 25 (although
in our own calendar, slightly modified since Caesar's time, it comes on
December 21).
In the first centuries of the Roman Empire, Christianity had to
compete with Mithraism, a form of Sun-worship with its roots in
Persia. In Mithraism, the winter solstice was naturally the occasion of
a great festival and in a.d. 274, the Roman Emperor, Aurelian, set
December 25 as the day of the birth of the Sun. In other words, he
lent the Mithraist holiday the official sanction of the government.
The celebration of the winter solstice was a great stumbling block to
conversions to Christianity. If Christians held the Saturnalia and the
birth of the Sun to be purely pagan then many converts were dis-
couraged. Even if they abandoned belief in the old Roman gods and
in Mithras, they wanted the joys of the holiday. (How many people
today celebrate the Christmas season with no reference at all to its
religious significance and how many would be willing to give up the
joy, warmth, and merriment of the season merely because they were
not pious Christians?)
But Christianity adapted itself to pagan customs where these, in the
IUKE
933
judgment of Christian leaders, did not compromise the essential doc-
trines of the Church. The Bible did not say on which day Jesus was
born and there was no dogma that would be affected by one day
rather than by another. It might, therefore, be on December 25 as well
as on any other.
Once that was settled, converts could join Christianity without giving
up their Saturnalian happiness. It was only necessary for them to joy-
fully greet the birth of the Son rather than the Sun.
If December 25 is Christmas and if it is assumed that Mary became
pregnant at the time of the annunciation, then the anniversary of the
annunciation must be placed on March 25, nine months before Christ-
mas. And, indeed, March 25 is the day of the Feast of the Annunciation
and is called Annunciation Day or, in England, Lady Day, where
"Lady" refers to Mary.
Again, if the annunciation came when Elisabeth was six months
pregnant, John the Baptist must have been bom three months later.
June 24 is the day on which his birth is celebrated.
December 25 was gradually accepted through most of the Roman
Empire between a.d. 300 and 350. This late period is indicated by the
date alone.
There were two general kinds of calendars in use in the ancient
Mediterranean world. One is the lunar calendar, which matches the
months to the phases of the Moon. It was devised by the Babylonians,
who passed it on to the Greeks and the Jews. The other is the solar
calendar, which matches the months to the seasons of the year. It was
devised by the Egyptians, who passed it on, in Caesar's time, to the
Romans, and, by way of Rome, to ourselves.
The lunar calendar does not match the seasons and, in order to keep
it from falling out of line, some years must have twelve lunar months
and others thirteen, in a rather complex pattern. To people using a
solar calendar (as we do) the lunar year is too short when it has twelve
months and too long when it has thirteen. A date that is fixed in a
lunar calendar slips forward and backward in the solar calendar, al-
though, in the long run, it oscillates about a fixed place.
The holidays established early in Church history made use of the
lunar calendar used by the Greeks and Jews. As a result, these holidays
shift their day (by our calendar) from year to year. The chief of these
days is Easter. It is the prime example of a "movable holiday" and
934
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
each year we must look at the calendar to see when it might come. All
the other movable holidays are tied to Easter and shift with it.
When Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and even
became the official doctrine of the land, early in the fourth century, it
began to make increasing use of the Roman calendar. It became rather
complicated to adjust the date of Easter to that calendar. There were
serious disagreements among different portions of the Church as to the
exact method for doing so, and schisms and heresies arose over the
matter.
Those holidays that came into being comparatively late, when Chris-
tianity had become official in the empire, made use of the Roman
calendar to begin with. Such holiday dates slid back and forth on the
lunar calendar but were fixed on solar calendars such as our own.
The mere fact that Christmas is celebrated on December 25 every year
and that the date never varies on our calendar is enough to show that it
was not established as a religious festival until after aj>. 300.
Simeon
Luke goes on to tell of incidents in Jesus' infancy and youth as
Matthew does. However, none of the incidents in Luke are to be found
in Matthew, and none in Matthew are to be found in Luke. Thus,
Luke says nothing at all concerning the flight into Egypt or the slaugh-
ter of the innocents. He also says nothing at all about the star of
Bethlehem and the three wise men from the east. Similarly, Matthew
says nothing at all about the census, the manger, or the shepherds.
According to Luke, when Jesus was presented at the Temple as a
first-bom son, he was seen by an old man named Simeon. Simeon,
who believed he would not die until he saw the Messiah, recognized
that Messiah in the infant and said:
Luke 2:29. Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word:
Luke 2:30. For mine eyes have seen thy salvation . . .
In Latin, Simeon's words begin: "Nunc dimittis servum tuum,
Domine," and the whole passage is therefore referred to as the "Nunc
Dimittis."
Simeon was an example of those who expected the Messiah but were
LUKE
935
content to do so quietly and patiently, as opposed to the Zealots who
actively searched for a Messiah and were willing to fight upon the
slightest suspicion of one.
Another aged habitue' of the Temple, a woman, is likewise de-
scribed as recognizing the infant Jesus as the Messiah:
Luke 2:36. And there was one Anna, a prophetess . . .
Anna is the Greek form of the Hebrew, Hannah (the name of the
mother of Samuel).
The Doctors
One tale of Jesus' boyhood is told by Luke, and it is the only tale of
Jesus as a boy that is to be found anywhere in the gospels.
At the age of twelve he is taken with his parents when they make
their annual trip to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover. When
Joseph and Mary leave Jerusalem, they discover Jesus is not with them,
and must return in search of him.
Luke 2:46. And it came to pass, that after three days they found
him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing
them, and asking them questions.
Luke 2:47. And all that heard him were astonished at his under-
standing and answers.
That Jesus was twelve at this time is perhaps no accident. In Judaism,
the age of thirteen is taken as the time of coming to religious maturity.
It is the time when a young man must take on the responsibility of
religious observances. Modem Jews have the ritual of the "bar mitz-
vah" ("son of the commandments," meaning "one who is responsible
for obedience to the commandments"), which each young man goes
through on his thirteenth birthday. Prior to that there is a lengthy period
of instruction and training in order to fit him for his task.
The ceremony of the bar mitzvah, as at present constituted, seems to
be of medieval origin, but no doubt religious education prior to the
thirteenth birthday was important in New Testament times. One has a
picture of the young Jesus fascinated by the "teachers" (the term used
in place of "doctors" in the Revised Standard Version) and eagerly
936
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
listening to instruction. In modern terms, he was preparing for his
bar mitzvah.
This incident in Luke may have been included as a way of refuting
those who sneered at the early Christians as followers of an ignorant
and unlettered Galilean. Luke attempts to demonstrate here that, even
as a child, the intelligence of Jesus and his interest in the Law astonished
even the learned men of the Temple.
Tiberius Caesar
But now Luke makes the great jump. He has done with legends of
the time before baptism and moves up to the period of time covered by
Mark.
Luke 3:1. Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of
Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region
of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
Luke 3:2. Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of
God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Tiberius Claudius Nero was the stepson of the Emperor Augustus,
being the son of Augustus' wife by a previous marriage. He was bom in
42 b.c. and during the early years of Augustus' reign he served well as a
general guiding the Roman armies against the tribes in the Danubian
areas, and against the Germans east of the Rhine.
Augustus had no sons and the two sons of his only daughter had
died young. He was therefore forced, rather against his will, to adopt
Tiberius as his heir. In ad. 14, when Augustus died, Tiberius became
the second Roman Emperor— that is, Tiberius Caesar.
He reigned for twenty-three years, till aj>. 37. The "fifteenth year"
of his reign would be aj>. 28/29.
Of the remaining rulers referred to in these verses, Pontius Pilate,
Herod Antipas of Galilee, and Philip of Iturea have been mentioned in
connection with Matthew's gospel. Trachonitis, a region north of Iturea
proper and south of Damascus, is listed here as part of Philip's territory.
Abilene is a district farther north still, lying northeast of Damascus.
Two high priests are listed, Annas and Caiaphas, and this cannot be
literally correct It was Caiaphas who was high priest. However, Annas
LUKE 937
had been high priest some fifteen years earlier and, as father-in-law
of Caiaphas, may still have been honored and influential in the high-
priestly circles.
Luke also gives Jesus' age at this period, being the only evangelist to
do so:
Luke 3:23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age . . .
Luke says "about." If this were a.d. 29 and if Jesus were exactly
thirty years old, then he would indeed have been bom in 1 b.c. And if
he were bom on December 25 in 1 b.c, then the New Year that
would start one week later would be a.d. 1. This is roughly the line of
reasoning of Dionysius Exiguus, but it is wrong, because Herod the
Great had been dead some four years on December 25, 1 b.c.
Dionysius' mistake, apparently, was to ignore the "about" and to as-
sume that the Biblical writers were more accurate about their dating
and chronology than they really were. Jesus would have had to be at
least thirty-three years old at the time of his baptism, and perhaps
thirty-five.
The Son of Joseph
It is at this point that Luke supplies Jesus with a genealogy, one
that runs backward in time rather than forward, as does Matthew's.
Luke 3:23. . . . Jesus . . . being (as was supposed) the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Heti,
Luke 3:24. Which was the son of Matthat . . .
The parenthetical phrase "as was supposed" would indicate Luke's
acceptance of the virgin birth, unless it was inserted by some pious
early copyist of the gospel.
The genealogy traces Jesus' line back not merely to Abraham, the
point from which Matthew's genealogy starts (see page 773) , but fur-
ther back still, to the beginning:
Luke 3:38. Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
938
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Matthew, writing from the Jewish standpoint, naturally begins with
Abraham. Luke, a Gentile, would not be satisfied to trace Jesus'
genealogy only as far back as it remained Jewish. By going back to the
beginning, he stressed the universality of Jesus' message, for whereas
only Jews were descended from Abraham, all men— Jews and Gentiles
alike— were descended from Adam.
Luke lists seventy-five generations in going from Jesus all the way
back to Adam, the longest continuous genealogy in the Bible. Nor is
Luke as preoccupied with numbers as Matthew was. He makes no
effort to divide the genealogy into significant sections. He has fifty-five
generations counting back to Abraham in place of Matthew's forty-
two.
Luke counts twenty generations from Adam to Abraham, whereas
the lists in the fifth and eleventh chapters of Genesis count nineteen.
Hie discrepancy occurs as follows. Luke says:
Luke 3:35. . . . which was the son of Sola [Salah],
Luke 3:36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of
Arphaxad . . .
whereas we find in Genesis:
Genesis 11:12. And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat
Salah . . .
In other words, an additional generation has crept in between Salah
and Arphaxad, so that the former is the son of the latter in Genesis and
the grandson of the latter in Luke. This is undoubtedly a copyist's
error, for Cainan is the great-grandson of Adam and occurs also in
the appropriate place in Luke's genealogy.
Luke 3:37. . . . which was the son of Maleleel [Mahaldeell, which
was the son of Cainan,
Luke 3:38. Which was the son of Enos . . .
So Cainan is counted twice.
From Abraham to David, the genealogies given in Matthew and in
Luke agree. Thereafter, they disagree sharply. Matthew follows the
descent from David through Solomon, Rehoboam, and the line of
Judean kings. Luke follows the descent from David through a son
named Nathan:
LUKE 939
Luke 3:31. . . . which was the son of Nathan, which was the son
of David . . .
Nathan was a son just older than Solomon, if the list of sons men-
tioned in the Second Book of Samuel are indeed in order of birth:
2 Samuel 5:14. And these be the names of those that were born
unto him [David] in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and
Nathan, and Solomon . . .
Luke gives the son of Nathan as Mattatha, and his son as Menan,
neither of whom is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. Indeed, the
entire genealogy after Nathan is completely obscure, merely a list of
unknown names. Whereas Matthew has virtually every king of Judah
listed among the ancestors of Jesus, Luke lists only David himself.
At only one place after David is there even a possibility of coinci-
dence. Matthew lists the fifteenth and sixteenth generations after David
as being of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel:
Matthew 1:12. And after they were brougfit to Babylon, Jechonias
[Jehoiachin] begat Salathiel [Shealtiel]; and Salathiel [Shealtiel]
begat Zorobabel [Zerubbabel] . . .
Luke does indeed mention these two names, perhaps because of the
prominent role played by Zerubbabel in connection with the return
from exile:
Luke 3:27. . . . which was the son of Zorobabd [Zerubbabel],
which was the son of Salathiel [Shealtiel], which was the son of
Neri . . .
But Matthew follows the Book of Ezra in having Shealtiel the son of
Jehoiachin, whereas Luke has him descend from Neri, who is nowhere
else mentioned in the Bible. Luke, moreover, has Zerubbabel twenty-
two generations after David, rather than Matthew's sixteen.
The two genealogies come together only at Joseph, the husband of
Mary. They disagree even in the name of Joseph's father:
Matthew 1:16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary . . .
Luke 3:23. . . . Jesus . . . the son of Joseph, which was the son
ofHeU...
940
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Attempts have been made to correlate these wildly differing gene-
alogies by supposing that Matthew was tracing the line of Jesus back
to David through Joseph, while Luke does so through Mary. It is
suggested, for instance, that Joseph was not the "son of Heli" as stated
in Luke 3:23, but actually the son-in-law of Heli, so that Heli was
Mary's father and the rest of the genealogy was Mary's.
This involves no flat contradictions, for the name of Mary's father is
not given directly anywhere in the Bible.
And yet are there grounds for considering Mary to have been de-
scended from David? That she was of Davidic descent is a tradition
that arose early in the history of Christianity. For instance, when Gabriel
is sent to make the annunciation:
Luke 1:26. . . . Gabriel was sent . . ,
Luke 1 -.27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph,
of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
One might argue that the phrase "of the house of David" re-
ferred to Mary rather than to Joseph, or to both.
But the argument is a tenuous one. After all, Mary is described
as a cousin of Elisabeth, who is herself described as a Levite.
Looking at the two genealogies objectively, it is hard not to think of
Matthew's as the more reliable. It includes more names that are to be
found in the Old Testament and it carries the list down the line of
Judean kings, something one would tend to think more appropriate
for a Messiah of Davidic descent.
One might almost think that Luke— a Gentile not acquainted with
Jewish genealogical records— might have invented names to fill in the
generations after David and Nathan.
Judas the brother of James
Luke now goes on with the tales that are also given in Matthew
and Mark. Jesus is tempted by Satan and successfully resists. He
preaches in his home town of Nazareth but is rejected by those who
knew him too well as a youth and will not accept him seriously as a
prophet. He heals the sick and begins to collect disciples.
Luke agrees with Mark in naming the publican disciple Levi (see
page 907) . However, in Luke's list of the twelve apostles, Levi is
LUKK 941
not mentioned, but Matthew is. This supports the notion that Levi
and Matthew are the same person known by two alternate names.
On the other hand, Luke does not mention Lebbaeus Thaddeus by
either name and it is this Lebbaeus who might conceivably be Levi
the son of Alphaeus that Mark mentions, and therefore the brother
of James the son of Alphaeus. In the place of Lebbaeus, Luke in-
cludes:
Luke 6:16. And Judas the brother of James . , .
This is by no means a reference to Judas Iscariot, for Luke includes
him separately, too, as the last of the list, of course.
Luke 6:16. . . . and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
But if there is a second Judas who is the brother of James (pre-
sumably the son of Alphaeus), then is this Judas the son of Alphaeus
an alternative name for Levi the son of Alphaeus; and is this Judas
the publican, Levi, rather than Matthew?
It is hard to tell. The Greek original of Luke 6:16 says simply
"Judas of James" and that might be more naturally translated as
"Judas son of James" rather than "brother of James." If this Judas
is the son of someone named James, then the connection with Levi
is lost
The Centurion
Luke's account of Jesus' life after the baptism is quite similar to
that found in Matthew and Mark, the other synoptic gospels, and
much of it can, in consequence, be passed over without comment
However, Luke does add or omit items that significantly illustrate the
difference in his point of view. He, after all, is taken to be a Gentile,
while Mark and Matthew are certainly of Jewish origin.
Thus, Luke includes material that portrays Gentiles favorably. For
instance, Luke tells the story of the centurion who asks Jesus to cure
his servant. Matthew, in telling that same story, makes no eEort to
picture the Gentile centurion as anything but a centurion (see page
835).
Luke, however, draws a picture of the centurion as one of touching
faith and humility. The centurion does not consider himself worthy
942
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
to approach Jesus and, instead, sends Jewish elders on his behalf.
Yet so worthy is the centurion that the elders (who can't be con-
ceived as being unduly biased in favor of Gentiles) plead for him:
Luke 7:4. And when they [the elders] came to Jesus, they besought
him instantly, saying, That he [the centurion] was worthy . . .
Luke 7:5. For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a
synagogue.
Luke also demonstrates himself to be sympathetic to women. Thus,
in the nativity tale, he concentrates on Mary where Matthew deals
primarily with Joseph. Luke portrays a Jesus who can even find room
for sympathy toward prostitutes. Thus, when Jesus is dining with a
Pharisee:
Luke 7:37. .. . behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner,
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisees house . . .
Luke 7:38. ... stood at his feet behind him weeping . . .
The Pharisee shows disdain for the woman but Jesus finds her
contrition acceptable and her sins forgiven and reads his host a lesson
in which the Pharisee comes off rather poorly.
It is immediately on the conclusion of this episode that Luke men-
tions the women who follow Jesus. This is characteristic of Luke, for
the other synoptic gospels mention only the men at this point:
Luke 8:1. . . . the twelve [apostles] were with him,
Luke 8:2. And certain women, which had been healed of evU
spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went
seven devils,
Luke 8:3. And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and
Susanna, and many others . . .
Mary Magdalene is mentioned first and it is sometimes assumed
that she was the "woman . . . which was a sinner" of the immediately
preceding episode but there is no clear justification for this (see page
900). Neither Joanna nor Susanna is mentioned outside of Luke.
The Good Samaritan
Luke, writing from the Gentile viewpoint, omits those verses in
Matthew and Mark which portray Jesus as hostile to non-Jews. Luke
LUKE 943
does not tell the story of the Canaanite woman who asks that her
daughter be cured and who humbly accepts Jesus' designation of
Gentiles as "dogs" (see page 834) .
And in describing Jesus' sending out of the apostles on their preach-
ing mission, Luke omits the passage in which Jesus forbids them to
enter the cities of the Gentiles or Samaritans and declares his own
mission to be confined to the Jews (see page 835) .
Instead, Luke includes a parable, not found in any of the other
gospels, which is among the most popular of all those attributed to
Jesus, and which preaches universalism.
The parable is occasioned by the question of a lawyer; that is, a
student of the Mosaic Law or a "scribe" as Matthew would call him.
He asks of Jesus how one may attain eternal life and Jesus challenges
him to answer his own question by citing the Law. The lawyer answers:
Luke 10:27. • • • Thou shdt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all
thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
The first part of this answer is a quotation from Deuteronomy, one
that is held to be a central tenet of Judaism:
Deuteronomy 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one
Lord:
Deuteronomy 6:5. And thou shdt love the Lord thy God with
all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with aU thy might.
The last part of the lawyer's quotation is from another section of the
Law:
Leviticus 19:18. Thou shdt not avenge, nor bear any grudge
against the children of thy people, but thou shdt love thy neighbour
as thyself . . .
Jesus approves of the statement, but the lawyer goes on to ask:
Luke 10:29. . . . And who is my neighbour?
The attempt here is to force a nationalist answer, for the remark in
Leviticus about loving one's neighbor as one's self, follows immediately
after a reference to "the children of thy people." The commandment in
Leviticus might therefore be taken as narrowly restricting a man's love
to neighbors of his own "people" only.
944
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jesus might therefore have answered that it was only necessary to love
those who were Jews or, a little more broadly, all those, Jews or non-
Jews, who worshipped the true God in the approved manner. All
others would then be outside the pale of love. (This indeed was what
Jesus seemed to be saying in the story of the Canaanite woman in
Matthew.)
Jesus does not say this in Luke, however. Instead he tells the
famous story of the man (presumably a Jew) who traveled from
Jerusalem to Jericho, was beset by thieves and left for dead. A priest
and a Levite passed him by, making no effort to help. They were each
learned in the Law and undoubtedly knew the verse in Leviticus and
were faced with a neighbor (even in the narrow sense of the word) in
need. Yet they did nothing.
Luke 10:33. But a certain Samaritan . . . came where he was:
and when he saw him, he had compassion on him . . .
The Samaritan saved the man and Jesus asked:
Luke 10:36. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neigh-
bour unto him that fell among the thieves?
Luke 10:37. And he [the lawyer] said, He that shewed mercy on
him . . .
In other words, a man is not a "neighbor" because of what he is but
because of what he does. A goodhearted Samaritan is more the neighbor
of a Jew, than a hardhearted fellow Jew. And, by extension, one might
argue that the parable teaches that all men are neighbors, since all
men can do well and have compassion, regardless of nationality. To
love one's neighbor is to love all men.
The term "good Samaritan" has been used so often in connection
with this parable that one gets the feeling that Samaritans were
particularly good people and that it was only to be expected that a
Samaritan would help someone in trouble. This loses the point of the
story, since to a Jew of the time of Jesus, Samaritans were a hateful and
despised people. The hate was returned and it was therefore naturally
to be expected that a Samaritan would nor help a Jew under any
conditions. The point Jesus was making was that even a Samaritan
could be a neighbor; how much more so, anyone else.
The flavor of the parable would probably be best captured in modern
America, if we had a white southern farmer left for dead, if we then
LUKE
945
had him ignored by a minister and a sheriff, and saved by a Negro
sharecropper. Then the question "Which now of these three . . .
was neighbour" would have a sharper point for our time.
The fact that Samaritans could be as narrowly nationalistic as Jews
is brought out in Luke, who reports that the Samaritans would not
allow Jesus to pass through their territory on his way to Jerusalem,
because they would not cooperate with anyone attempting to visit that
city so hated by them:
Luke 9:53. . . . they [the Samaritans] did not receive him
[Jesus], because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
Here too Luke seizes the opportunity to display the good will of
Jesus as rising above nationalistic considerations, even when he is
provoked. James and John, the sons of thunder (see page 9(W) , ask if
they ought not to call down a rain of fire on the inhospitable
Samaritans, and Jesus answers:
Luke 9:56. . . . the Son of man is not come to destroy men's
lives, but to save them . . .
At another point, Luke introduces another tale not found in the
other gospels which tends to display a Samaritan in a good light. Jesus
cures ten lepers but only one returns to thank him:
Luke 17:16. . . . and he was a Samaritan,
Luke 17:17. And Jesus . . . said, Were there not ten cleansed? but
where are the nine?
Luke 17:18. There are not found that returned to give glory to
God, save this stranger.
Lazarus the Beggar
Luke retains the anti-rich attitude of Matthew (see page S32) . He
quotes Jesus' remarks about the dangers of wealth:
Luke 16:13. No servant can serve two masters ... Ye cannot
serve God and mammon,
Luke 18:25. • • • ft " easier for a camel to go through a needle's
eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
946
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Indeed, Luke goes even beyond Matthew, for he includes a famous
parable (found only in Luke) that seems to illustrate this hard view
against riches.
Luke 16:19. There was a certain rich man . . .
Luke 16:20. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which
was laid at his gate, full of sores . . .
The Latin word for rich is "dives," so that in the Latin version of the
Bible, the phrase "rich man" is "homo dives." If the verse is left partly
untranslated, it becomes, "There was a certain man, Dives . . ." This is
what gives rise to the common misconception that the name of the rich
man in this parable was Dives, so that one will speak of the parable of
"Dives and Lazarus." Actually, the rich man is not named; he is merely
a rich man. As for Lazarus, that is a Greek version of the Hebrew name,
Eleazar.
When the beggar dies, however, he goes to heaven:
Luke 16:22. . . . the beggar died, and was carried by the angels
into Abraham's bosom . . .
Because of this verse "Abraham's bosom" has entered the English
language as synonymous with heaven, but in connection with Lazarus,
it means more than that.
The phrase originates out of the dining customs of the period. The
Israelites in the time of the kingdoms sat upon chairs at meals, as we
do today. Thus, concerning the feast where Saul grew suspicious of
David because of the latter's absence, the Bible relates:
1 Samuel 20:25. And the king sat upon his seat, as at other
times . . .
The Greeks, however, (at least among the wealthier classes) had the
habit of reclining upon their left elbow on low upholstered couches
and eating with the right hand. The custom spread among the better-
off of other nations, as a sign of genteel and gracious living. This style
of eating gave rise to universally understood metaphors.
A host would put the guest of honor to his immediate right at a
meal. If both reclined on their left elbows, the guest's head would now
be close to the host's breast. In a manner of speaking, the guest would
be "in the host's bosom."
If we use the expression today, when Western eating habits, at all
LUKE 947
levels of society, include sitting rather than reclining, the expression
"in his bosom" gives rise to thoughts of one man cradling the head of
another, but that is wrong. It would be better if we translated the
phrase into our analogous metaphor today and said, "the beggar died,
and was carried by the angels to the right side of Abraham." In short,
Lazarus not only went to heaven, but to the post of highest honor, at
the right hand of Abraham himself.
As for the rich man, his fate was quite different; he went to hell.
What's more, this wasn't the Sheol of the Old Testament, the gray
place of infinite nothingness, with the chief punishment that of the
absence of God (see page I-173). In Old Testament times, hell, or
Sheol, had little to do with punishment. Rewards and punishments
were viewed by the Israelites as something that was meted out in this
world and not in the next.
However, during the centuries when the Jews were under the domi-
nation of outsiders, it seemed too clear that the foreign oppressors were
flourishing and the Jews were suffering. The whole problem of good
and evil, of reward and suffering, grew tremendously complex, theologi-
cally speaking. The Book of Job is an example of the controversy that
arose in that respect.
Since to most Jews it was unthinkable that God was unjust, it
followed that the apparent injustices of this world would have to be
redressed in the world to come. Virtuous men would be rewarded
infinitely in heaven, while wicked men would be punished infinitely in
hell. This latter view makes itself felt in the last verse in Isaiah, which is
part of the post-Exilic "Third Isaiah" (see page I-553) . Those who are
saved, the verse says:
Isaiah 66:24. . . . shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the
men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not
die, neither shall their fire be quenched . . .
A contributing factor to the development of the notion of a hell of
torture may have been the exposure, in Ptolemaic and Seleucid times,
to certain Greek legends. The Greek Hades, generally, was very much
like the Israelite Sheol, a gray place of negativeness. A portion of it,
Tartarus, was, however, reserved for notable criminals, and there the
Greek imagination exhausted itself in imagining ingenious tortures-
such as Sisyphus endlessly rolling a rock uphill only to have it roll down
948
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
again as soon as the top was gained, or thirsty Tantalus forever up to his
chin in water which swirled away whenever he stooped to drink.
The less ingenious men of Judea clung to external fire as a means of
torture and by New Testament times that was fixed. Thus Mark quotes
Jesus as warning men not —
Mark 9:43. ... to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be
quenched . . .
The rich man of the parable of Lazarus the beggar descends into
just such a hell:
Luke 16:22. . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luke 16:23. And in hell . . . being in torments, . . .
Luke 16:24. .. . he cried . . . , Father Abraham, . . . send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my
tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Abraham refuses, for there is an impassable gulf between heaven
and hell. Moreover, Abraham is described by this parable in Luke as
justifying the presence of Lazarus in heaven and the rich man in hell
without reference to virtue and wickedness. No sins of the rich man
are recalled, merely the fact of his being rich:
Luke 16:25. But Abraham said, [to the rich man] Son, remember
that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise
Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tor-
mented.
It is this dramatic turnabout, this promise to the poor and down-
trodden of the world, that they would have their revenge in the after-
world, that may have helped make this parable particularly popular.
Because of its popularity, the term "Lazarus" has come to be applied to
diseased beggars. Since the sores mentioned are often presumed to be
those of leprosy, the term, particularly in the shortened form "lazar," has
come to be synonymous to "leper."
A Far Country
Luke has Jesus relate the parable of the talents (see page 210),
though here the units of money are referred to as "pounds." A change
LUKE <H<;
is introduced. Instead of, as in Matthew, the mere mention of a man
traveling to a far country, the purpose of the journey is given:
Luke 19:12. . . . A certain nobleman went into a far country to
receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
• • • *
Luke 19:14. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after
him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
Luke 19:15. . . . [But] he . . . returned, having received the
kingdom . , .
In the context of modem times, this would be puzzling. Why should
one travel to a far country to receive a kingdom? In New Testament
times, however, this was not odd at all, for the far country was Rome.
Around the perimeter of the Roman Empire were a number of puppet
kingdoms, each theoretically independent, but all completely under
Rome's thumb. No one could succeed to the throne of any of these
kingdoms without Rome's permission, and that was not always possible
to get without a healthy bribe. And if a claimant hurried to Rome to
negotiate such a bribe, it might happen that his subjects at home
would send a counter-deputation to plead against it, if the claimant
were unpopular.
Just this seems to have happened in the case of Herod Archelaus in
4 b.c, after the death of Herod the Great, and it is to him that the
parable seems to refer. Archelaus was confirmed in his rule, but as
ethnarch only, not as king, and ten years later, as a result of the
persistent pleadings of his subjects, he was deposed.
Herod Antipas
The account of Jesus' climactic week in Jerusalem, as given in Luke,
differs little, in general, from the accounts of Matthew and Mark.
But Luke is a Gentile and he seems anxious to diminish even further
the share of Pilate, the Gentile governor, in the crucifixion of Jesus,
and to increase the share of the Jewish secular authorities.
As in Matthew and Mark, Pilate, in Luke, is pictured as unwilling to
condemn Jesus, but he declares his belief in Jesus' innocence three
times, rather than once as in Matthew or twice as in Mark. Further-
950
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
more, in Luke, and in Luke only, Pilate is described as attempting to
deny jurisdiction altogether:
Luke 25:6. . . . Pilate . . . asked whether the man [Jesus] were a
Galilaean.
Luke 23:7. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's
jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem
at that time.
This, of course, is Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, who was in
Jerusalem, presumably, for the Passover season, The trial before Herod
comes to nothing, really, because Jesus would not speak in his own
behalf. Herod refused to make any judgment:
Luke 23:11. And Hewd . . . sent him again to Pilate.
But it would seem that whatever blame falls upon Pilate, in Luke's
eyes, falls also upon Herod Antipas.
The Crucifixion
The details of the crucifixion as given by Luke differ in some ways
from those given by Matthew and Mark. In Matthew and Mark
we have the picture of the "historic Jesus" abandoned and reviled by
all, and seeming to die in despair.
In Luke this has largely disappeared and Jesus is pictured as much
more clearly the Messiah. He forgives his crucifiers in a noble phrase
that is not found in the other gospels:
Luke 23:34. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know
not what they do.
As in Mark and Matthew, Luke describes three as being crucified at
this time, with Jesus on the middle cross between two thieves. Mark
says nothing more about this, while Matthew describes even these
thieves as reviling Jesus:
Matthew 27:44. The thieves also, which were crucified with him,
cast the same [mockery] in his teeth.
In Luke, however, Jesus is described as forgiving again. One of the
thieves accepts Jesus as Messiah:
LUKE 951
Luke 23:42. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when
thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luke 23:43. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To
day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
This thief is known in tradition as "the good thief or "the penitent
thief." He is not named in the gospels, but tradition supposes his name
to be Dismas.
Finally, Luke does not describe Jesus' final despairing cry of "My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It does not easily fit the
Messianic picture, nor can Luke count on his Gentile readers appreciat-
ing the subtlety of the application of the psalm whose first phrase
that cry is (see page 895) . Instead, he has Jesus' last words the much
more formal and undramatic:
Luke 23:46. . . . Jesus . . . said, Father, into thy hands I com-
mend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
That too, as it happens, is a quotation from the psalms:
Psalm 31:5. Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast re-
deemed me, O Lord God of truth.
Then follows the tale of the resurrection, told at much greater length
and in much more circumstantial detail than in either Matthew or
Mark. With that, the gospel of St. Luke ends.
8. JOHN
THE FOURTH GOSPEL • THE BELOVED DISCIPLE * JOHN SON OF ZEBEDEE *
THE WORD * JOHN THE BAPTIST ' THE LAMB OF GOD " NATHANAEL * THE SON
OF JOSEPH * CANA • THE JEWS' PASSOVER * THE TEMPLE • NICODEMUS *
SAMARIA ' JEWRY " ABRAHAM 1 LAZARUS * CAIAPHAS * THE COMFORTER *
PILATE ' THE SPEAR • THOMAS
The Fourth Gospel
The details of Jesus' life, as given in the fourth gospel, are quite
different from those which the first three synoptic gospels have in
common.
There are some who endeavor to accept as correct all four gospels
and who therefore must explain apparent inconsistencies. It is possible
to argue, for instance, that the synoptic gospels deal primarily with
Jesus' preachings to the common people of Galilee and ignore his work
in Jerusalem itself, except for the final climactic week of his life. The
fourth gospel, it could then be suggested, rounds out the picture by
concentrating on Jesus' work in Jerusalem, which it describes as lasting
three years, rather than one week. Jesus' discourses now tend to be long
and argumentative (rather than simple and parable-laden) as would
suit disputes with learned priests and theologians.
On the other hand, it might also be argued that the fourth
gospel was written quite late, for a community that was already
Christian but was involved in doctrinal disputes. Its purpose might
then have been, not to present a realistic picture of Jesus, but rather to
use him as a figure through whom to present the author's theology, as
opposed to the conflicting views of others. It might, from that stand-
point, seem that the fourth gospel could be considered a form of
didactic fiction, roughly analogous to the dialogues in which Plato
placed his own philosophy into the mouth of Socrates.
JOHN 95}
— a 1 - ■ „ ■ ;
ABILENE. /'
Mepiterranean
Sea.
I PHOENICIA
SY R I A/
/(ROMAN PROVINCE) /
r .f* ITURAEA
Ttoltmris 1
""/''GALILEE)
/.V/ii(>lfiJ T . 7 1
Doroi
ULATHA
U>iE-
SEMTH0M71S
CAULANITIS
... ,*a\tK\i
'.</.■ BATANAEA .
WkuiitMts B AS HAN
Dim
AURANITIS /
Oitstmf
AftllmiaL
- .- \ : ;.:7r-v->-'
** (Girniii)'* 1 i-\
"". SAMARIA; , -
TENDER ROMAN PROCURATOR)
: ' „ •"■V. «
\ ' Skciium f. Si)f/ur , \
/7^ r V nhpa ^ „>-"" k ■ *» (I
l^iWl*, C. f ,i
/ -1- \ >V'.- * •
tosaiomc} urcn'f^Niatclis. — "
Asaknf--^S JUDAEA,<>.
(UNDER ROMAN TROCURATORl. 5?|
•liar* : - .>Cifiio[iiu
liBcikttm- ( ,
'PECAPOIIS
,£f*rjun
;«lta {.=
"
t .1.1 ... . j . ■'"a
PERAEA.'i.-
TC TRAKCHY Of l'
HEfJODANTirAS)
Wlli.Smk?''! •PhWjIp*-^''
AMMON <
T
DUMAE A
^ TA*E A MS '-S. > it>r^.
ARAB I A
JNy. CitiesihMt Dtatplis
Palestine in the Time of Christ
954
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
It is generally agreed that the fourth gospel is later than the others,
but by a j>. 1 50 it seems already to have been known and referred to by
Christian writers. Peihaps aj>. 100 might be accepted as a round figure
and as a likely date for its composition, though it might be somewhat
later still.
If so, the fourth gospel appeared roughly a generation after the
destruction of Jerusalem, by which time it was certain that the paths of
Judaism and Christianity had diverged irrevocably and that the future
of Christianity lay with the Gentile world.
This state of affairs is reflected in the gospel, in which Jesus appears
far less as a parochial Jewish prophet and far more as a universal Son of
God than in any of the synoptic gospels, far more so, even, than in
Luke. And in the fourth gospel, the Jews are treated even less favorably
than in Luke.
The Beloved Disciple
As to the authorship of the fourth gospel, that seems to rest with an
unnamed individual who is mentioned therein in terms that do not
occur in the synoptic gospels. We meet this individual at the last
supper, for instance, when Jesus announces that one of the apostles
will betray him.
The incident is described in each of the four gospels and in each of
the four the response on the part of the apostles is described differently.
In Mark, all twelve are troubled:
Mark 14:19. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him
one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
In Luke, all twelve are troubled, but discuss it among themselves:
Luke 22:23. And they began to enquire among themselves, which
of them it was that should do this thing.
In Matthew, it is Judas Iscariot himself who guiltily rises to the bait:
Matthew 26:25. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and
said, Master, is it I? . . .
In the fourth gospel, howeveT, things are not that spontaneous.
Jesus is presented as a divine and Godlike figure whom it is far less
john 955
easy to approach. Since he did not spontaneously reveal the name of
the mysterious traitor, it might be that he did not wish to reveal it and
that there might therefore be a danger involved in trying to penetrate
the secret. Presumably, then, the one to take the risk of inquiring
ought to be that disciple who was Jesus' favorite and who might there-
fore most safely presume on the Master's patience.
John 13:23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his
disciples, whom Jesus loved.
John 13:24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he
should ask who it should be of whom he [Jesus] spake.
We must not assume, of course, that the disciple in question was
actually being cradled by Jesus. The phrase 'leaning on Jesus' bosom"
was merely the common metaphor used to signify that the disciple
was seated in the place of honor on Jesus' right (see page 946) .
In none of the synoptic gospels is reference made to some particular
apostle "whom Jesus loved"; only in the fourth.
The Beloved Disciple is mentioned as witnessing the crucifixion, as
being the first apostle to reach the sepulcher from which Jesus had been
resurrected, and as recognizing the resurrected Jesus.
Most significantly, he appears at the very end of the gospel when the
risen Jesus is giving his final instructions to Peter:
John 21:20. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom
Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper . . .
With reference to this, an editorial comment, added a few verses
later, reads:
John 21:24. T/>» is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and
wrote these things . . .
Is this the signature of the Beloved Disciple? Does this mean that the
Beloved Disciple actually wrote the fourth gospel as we have it today?
Or did someone else write the fourth gospel, after having used the
reminiscences of the Beloved Disciple as his source material, and did he
then attribute the authorship to that source, considering himself only a
secretary? Or was the verse added by a later copyist or commentator who
was expressing his own theory that the Beloved Disciple had written the
fourth gospel?
It is difficult to see how these questions can ever be answered in
956
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
such a way as to satisfy everybody. Christian tradition, however, has it
that the Beloved Disciple was indeed the author.
It seems odd, perhaps, and even unpleasantly vain, that the Beloved
Disciple, if he is the author of the fourth gospel, should so stress his
favored position with Jesus each time he mentions himself. But perhaps
there is a purpose beyond vanity in this. If the fourth gospel were
written to expound a theological viewpoint against strong competing
forces, it would be important that the writer stress, as forcefully as he
could, his own authority to speak. He was not only one of the apostles,
but of all the apostles, Jesus' favorite and the one most likely to be "in
the know."
And if the gospel were actually written by a secretary from words or
writings of the disciple, it may have been the secretary who kept stressing
the favored position of the source for the purpose just given.
John Son of Zebedee
The question next arises as to who the Beloved Disciple might be?
To begin with, it seems reasonable to suppose he was one of the
apostles, since the Beloved Disciple was at the last supper and, as the
synoptic gospels agree, only Jesus and his twelve apostles were at this
supper:
Matthew 26:20. Now when the even was come, he sat down with
the twelve.
Matthew 26:21. And . . . they did eat . . .
To be sure, however, the fourth gospel, alone of the gospels, does not
specifically list the names of the twelve apostles, and does not specifi-
cally state that only the apostles joined Jesus at the last supper. Within
the context of the fourth gospel, then, the Beloved Disciple might not
have been one of the twelve apostles, and several nonapostles have been
suggested for the role. Nevertheless, Christian tradition makes the
Beloved Disciple one of the apostles.
But which one?
He is the favorite, and it does seem from the synoptic gospels that
among the apostles there is an inner group of three, who share more
intimately with Jesus the crucial moments of his life. These three,
john 957
Peter and the sons of Zebedee, James and John, are described as
witnessing the transfiguration, for instance:
Matthew 17:1. . . . Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his
brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
Matthew 17:2. And was transfigured before them . . .
The other nine apostles were not vouchsafed this sight.
Again it was Peter, James, and John who were alone with Jesus at the
time of the prayer in Gethsemane just before the arrest:
Matthew 26:37. ^nd he [Jesus] took with him Peter and the two
sons of Zebedee . . .
One might argue that Jesus would scarcely omit the disciple he
loved best from these climactic moments, so that the Beloved Disciple
must be one of these three: Peter, James, or John.
Of these three, Peter would seem the almost automatic choice since
all the gospels agree that he was the leading apostle who always took
the initiative among them. Yet it is precisely Peter who must be
eliminated, since on three of the occasions on which the Beloved
Disciple is present, Peter is present also, and the two are distinguished
as separate individuals. Thus it is Peter who motions to the Beloved
Disciple to inquire about the traitor.
This makes it seem that the Beloved Disciple was either James or
John, one of the two sons of Zebedee. (Could it be for this reason
that the two made so bold as to ask for favored positions with Jesus
when the Messianic kingdom was established— see page 858— presum-
ing on his favoritism toward one of them?)
In choosing between James and John, let us return to the final
appearance of the Beloved Disciple on the occasion of the resurrected
Jesus' last discourse with Peter. Peter turns, sees the Beloved Disciple
(see page 1068) , and asks:
John 21:21. . . . and what shall this man do?
John 21 :22. Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come,
what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Peter, in other words, is to follow instructions and not worry about
the Beloved Disciple. The Beloved Disciple will have his own tasks,
which may include anything, even up to and including remaining alive
on Earth till the second coming.
958
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The writer of the fourth gospel then goes on to correct a misappre-
hension, pointing out that Jesus did not say flatly that the Beloved
Disciple would not die till the second coming; but that he would not
die if Jesus chose to arrange it so.
John 21:23. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,
that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He
shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
thee?
There is important significance here. The early Christians believed
that Jesus would soon return and that the kingdom of God would
quickly be established. There are verses that would seem to bear them
out. Thus, in each of the three synoptic gospels there is repeated what
seems to be a definite promise on the part of Jesus to that effect.
Matthew 16:28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom.
Clearly, the Beloved Disciple must have been standing there at the
time and if that disciple had an extended lifetime, Jesus' remark must
have begun to take on specific meaning. One by one, those who had
known and heard Jesus died, but the Beloved Disciple lived on.
Surely, then, many must have thought it was he to whom Jesus referred
as the someone who "shall not taste of death" till the second coming.
The fourth gospel as the latest-written (seventy years or more after
the crucifixion ) would have to be less certain than the synoptic gospels
on the matter of the imminent second coming. In particular if the
Beloved Disciple died without the second coming having taken place,
it would be necessary for his secretary or some later commentator to
insert a remark to the effect that Jesus had made a statement with
reference to the Beloved Disciple, but that it had been a conditional
and not an absolute one.
(Of course, the reference to some who would not die before the
second coming might be taken to refer not to the Beloved Disciple
but to some quite obscure person who was standing within earshot of
Jesus at the time. This thought probably contributed to the rise of the
tale of the so-called "Wandering Jew." This was a Jew who committed
some crime or offense against Jesus at the time of the crucifixion and
was condemned to wandering the Earth, immortally, until the second
john 959
coming. Concerning this figure, a vast array of legends has arisen, all of
which are entirely without Biblical foundation except for the distant
support of this one verse.)
Returning to the Beloved Disciple, however, we can see that this
final passage in the fourth gospel can be used to argue that he must
have been long-lived. And, indeed, if he wrote the fourth gospel in
aj>. 100 or somewhat later, this must be so.
But of the two sons of Zebedee, James was not long-lived. He died a
martyr's death not many years after the crucifixion:
Acts 12:1. Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth
his hands to vex certain of the church.
Acts 12:2. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
The leaves John the son of Zebedee, and he is the only one of the
apostles concerning whom where is no widely accepted tradition of
martyrdom. Rather, legend supposes him to have lived to the age of
ninety and beyond.
According to legend, John, in later life, engaged in missionary work
in Ephesus, a city on the coast of Asia Minor. During the reign of
Domitian (a.d. 81-96), when Christians were persecuted, he retired for
safety's sake to the island of Patmos, about fifty miles southwest of
Ephesus. After Domitian's death he returned to Ephesus and there
died sometime in the reign of Trajan (a.d. 98-117).
If these are indeed the facts and if he were twenty at the time of the
crucifixion, John son of Zebedee would have been bom a.d. 9 and
would have been ninety-one years old in a.d. 100 when the fourth
gospel might have been written. That is a great age, but certainly not
an impossible one.
Another point in favor of this theory is that John is never mentioned
by name in the fourth gospel, so there is no possibility of distinguishing
him from the Beloved Disciple. The closest approach comes when some
of the disciples are listed among those who witnessed the resurrected
Jesus on one occasion:
John 21:2. . . . Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and
Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two
other of his disciples.
And at this point there is no mention of the Beloved Disciple.
There are thus no glaring inconsistencies in supposing the Beloved
960
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Disciple to be John son of Zebedee, and indeed it is the strong
tradition of the early Church that this John was the author of the
fourth gospel. By a.d. 200 the tradition was universal and it can be
traced back to Irenaeus.
His testimony is considered particularly valuable, since he claims to
have known Polycarp, a Christian bishop of Asia Minor, who lived
from about a.d. 70 to 155 and who, in turn, was supposed to have been
a disciple of John himself.
In modern times there have been theories that the John mentioned
by Irenaeus as the author of the fourth gospel was some other John,
not the son of Zebedee, but the matter is never likely to be settled
to the complete satisfaction of everyone. We can say simply that
Christian tradition makes John son of Zebedee the author of the
fourth gospel and there is no clear and simple way of refuting that
tradition. The fourth gospel is therefore called "The Gospel According
to St. John."
The Word
The gospel of St. Mark begins with the baptism of Jesus by John
the Baptist as the period at which the Holy Spirit entered Jesus.
Matthew and Luke begin with the birth of Jesus as that period.
John goes further back still. Whereas in the synoptic gospels Jesus is
seen primarily as a human being (although he is the Messiah also), in
John, Jesus is seen in much more exalted fashion, as clearly and
manifestly divine to all but the villains of the piece. And to stress that
point, John begins his gospel with a hymn in praise of "the Word" (or,
in Greek "Logos") which carries matters back to the very beginning of
time.
John 1 : 1 . In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was Cod.
The use of the term "the Word" in its capitalized sense, as an
aspect of God, is not found anywhere in the Old Testament, or, for
that matter, anywhere in the New Testament except in the gospel of
St. John and a couple of other books attributed to the same author.
The term "Logos" is to be found, however, in the writings of the
JOHN %l
Greek philosophers, and is used in something of the sense in which it is
found in John.
The term dates back to the sixth century B.C., at the time the
Kingdom of Judah was coming to an end, and the Jews were being
carried off into Babylonian Exile. In that century, a new way of looking
at the universe arose among certain scholars on the western coast of
Asia Minor.
The first of these was Thalcs of Miletus, who was born about 640
b.c. (when Manasseh was rounding out his long reign over Judah).
He is thought to have first devised the methods of abstract geometry;
to have studied electric and magnetic phenomena; to have brought
Babylonian astronomy to the Greek world; and to have suggested that
water was the fundamental material of the universe.
However, the most important contribution made by Thales and
those who studied under him and followed him was the assumption
that the universe was not erratic in its workings; and was not at the
mercy of impulsive gods or demons who interfered with nature to suit
their own whims and who could be swayed by human entreaty or
threats. Rather, Thales and his group supposed that the universe ran
according to certain fixed rules, which we might term "laws of nature"
and that these laws were not forever unknowable but could be worked
out by man through observation and reason. This assumption of the
rationality and knowability of the universe was established by these
Greeks as the foundation of science and it has remained the foundation
ever since.
It was not so much that Thales and the rest necessarily denied the
existence of gods or the fact that the world was created by superhuman
agency. It was just that the gods, in creating the world, did so according
to some rational principle and then abided by that principle, without
arbitrary interference in the day-to-day workings of the universe.
One of those who followed Thales in this view of the universe was
Heraclitus of Ephesus, who taught about 500 b.c. He seems to have
used the word "Logos" to represent the rational principle according to
which the world was created. (Is it entirely a coincidence that the
Logos-permeated gospel of St. John was, according to legend, written
in the very city of Ephesus which, in a way, had seen the first intro-
duction of that term?)
Literally, "Logos" means "Word" in English, but the Greek term
has implications far beyond the simple significance of "word." "Logos"
962
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
refers to the whole rational structure of knowledge. We use it in the
names of our sciences: "zoology" ("words concerning animals," or,
more properly, "the rational structure of knowledge concerning ani-
mals"); "geology" ("words concerning the Earth"); "biology" ("words
concerning life"); and so on.
As "Logos" came to be used more and more by Greek thinkers,
some of them rather mystical, it came to stand not merely for an
abstract principle but for a personified entity that had created the
world. "Logos" came to be considered a kind of god in its own right; a
rational, creative god.
In post-Exilic times, as the Jews came under the influence of Greek
philosophy, they felt impelled to try to justify "Logos" in terms of the
Jewish God. Often they used a Hebrew word, which we translate as
"Wisdom," to represent something like the Greek "Logos." The Wis-
dom so referred to is not merely worldly learning but, more than that,
a kind of inner, spiritual learning that transcends the world of matter.
The use of the term as a substitute for "Logos" was quite apt. As a
matter of fact, in the course of the sixth century B.C., the term
"philosopher" began to be applied to the Greek scholars and this is a
Greek term which can be translated as "lover of wisdom."
It was divine Wisdom, in the eyes of some of the post-Exilic Jewish
writers, that created the world and set it upon its rational foundation.
Some of the books of the Apocrypha and even some of the later canoni-
cal books of the Old Testament contain hymns to Wisdom that almost
sound as though it is a formal aspect of God, to be worshipped, rather
than a mere abstraction being praised. Its eternal existence is em-
phasized and in the Book of Proverbs, Wisdom is pictured, at one
point, as speaking in the first person and as saying:
Proverbs 8:22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.
Proverbs 8:23. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
or ever the earth was.
Ecclesiasticus has a similar passage in which Wisdom is again speak-
ing in the first person:
Ecclesiasticus 24:9. He [God] created me [Wisdom] from the
beginning before the world, and I shall never fail.
JOHN %>
In the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom is sometimes presented in
terms usully reserved for God:
Wisdom of Solomon 1 :6. For wisdom is a loving spirit; and will not
acquit a blasphemer of his words . . .
The role of Wisdom as the creative aspect of God is also referred to:
Wisdom of Solomon 7:22. . . . wisdom . . . is the worker of all
things . . .
There is a reference to Wisdom in the gospel of St. Luke, where
Jesus is quoted as saying:
Luke 11:49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send
them prophets and apostles . . .
In Jesus' lifetime, there lived in Alexandria a Jew named Philo
(usually called Philo Judaeus, or "Philo the Jew"). He was learned
not only in Jewish thought, but in Greek philosophy as well and he
labored, in his writings, to explain the former through the words and
concepts of the latter.
Philo, writing in Greek, makes use of the term "Logos" rather than
"Wisdom" and has it representing the rational and creative aspect of
Yahveh. To explain its relationship to God, he speaks of it, metaphori-
cally, as the "image of God" or the "son of God."
John adopts this Philonian view, a view which is particularly fitting,
if the gospel were written in Ephesus at the very center of the Greek
philosophic tradition and the place where the term "Logos" was first
used.
John therefore opens with a hymn to Logos (that might, conceivably,
have been adapted from some pagan hymn ) which is expressed in such
a way as to fit the theological view expressed by the gospel.
There were views concerning Logos which, it seems, John considered
incompatible with the true faith.
There were, for instance, philosophers and mystics who tried to
separate the notions of God and of Logos. They felt that there was
a God who was indeed personified Wisdom, but he was far and remote
and unknowable to man. He was pure spirit and had nothing to do
with anything material. To these philosophers, this divine, spiritual, and
unknowable principle was "Gnosis," which is Greek for "knowledge."
Such philosophers are therefore called "Gnostics."
964
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
But if Wisdom or Gnosis is remote from matter and unconcerned
with it, how did the world come to be created? Here the Gnostics took
a turning opposed to that of Thales. It was not a rational principle
(divine or otherwise) that created the world, but a sub-divine and
evil principle. Where Thales found the world rational and supposed
that a rational principle had created it, the Gnostics found the world
evil and supposed that an evil principle had created it.
The Greek philosopher Plato had made use of the term "demiourgos"
for the creative principle, and this becomes "demiurge" in English.
The word means "worker for the people" or, so to speak, "civil servant."
It was used in the Greek cities for certain officials who were viewed as
serving the public. The Demiurge was looked upon, in other words, as
a superhuman civil servant who served mankind by first creating and
then governing the world.
To the Gnostics, this Demiurge was an inferior principle who had
created an evil world with deliberate malice. What's more, the spiritual
essence of man, which was akin to the distant Gnosis, was trapped by
the Demiurge in a body which, being made of matter, was evil. For a
man to aspire to salvation, it was necessary, somehow, to transcend the
evil body and to attain the distant spirituality of Gnosis.
In the early days of Christianity, certain Gnostics adapted their
thought to Christianity. Gnosis was still the unknowable, unreachable
God. The "God" of the Old Testament, on the other hand, who had
created the world, was viewed by the Gnostics as really the Demiurge.
It was Yahveh's demonic influence that was responsible for all the
evil in the world.
Jesus, on the other hand, was, by the Gnostic view, the Logos,
a son or derivative of the spiritual Gnosis. Jesus was himself pure
spirit since he could not involve himself with the created matter of the
evil Demiurge, but he took on the illusion of a material body in order to
help guide men away from the Demiurge of matter to the Gnosis of
spirit.
The gospel of St. John sets itself firmly against the Gnostic in-
terpretation. John makes God and Logos equal in all respects. Not
only did Logos exist from the very beginning so that Logos was with
God, but Logos was God.
Furthermore, this God was not a mysterious Gnosis, but was the
very God of the Old Testament who had created the world:
JOHN %5
John 1:2. The same [Logos] was in the beginning with God.
John 1 : 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made.
and the Logos was the rational, creative aspect of that God.
What's more, this same God of the Old Testament was not merely
an entity of matter, while something else was spirit. God was both
spirit and matter; God was the 'light" toward which men could strive
and that was the inner essence of things:
John 1:4. In him [God/Logos] was life; and the life was the
light of men.
John 1:5. And the light shineth in darkness . . .
Nor was Jesus a mere thing of spirit clothed in the illusion of mat-
ter. John made it clear that the Logos was to be considered as having
been incarnated in a real and actual material body:
John 1 114. And the Word was made fleshy and dwelt among us . . .
John the Baptist
The hymn to Logos is interrupted with an emphatic assertion that
the Logos is nor to be interpreted as John the Baptist. In the early
decades following the crucifixion there were those who maintained
that John the Baptist had been of particular importance and that
perhaps he, rather than Jesus, was the Messiah. These may have repre-
sented a considerable group even as late as ajx 100 and they had to
be countered.
John 1:6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was ]ohn.
John 1:7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the
Light . . .
John i:8. He was not that Light . . .
Then, after the conclusion of the hymn to Logos, the fourth gospel
quotes John the Baptist himself as denying any pretensions to Mes-
siah-hood:
John 1:19. . . . when the Jews sent priests and Levites from
Jerusalem to ask him [John the Baptist], Who art thou?
John 1:20. . . . he confessed . . . 1 am not the Christ.
966
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The fourth gospel goes still further than that.
The synoptic gospels, written at a time when Christianity was still in
its infancy and when it needed allies in its fight against Jewish
orthodoxy, seem willing to allow John the Baptist the lesser, but still
considerable, role of the incarnated Elijah. The fourth gospel, writ' en
at a time when Christianity was a couple of decades stronger, seer od
to feel no need for such a compromise:
John 1:21. And they asked him [John the Baptist], What then?
Art thou Elias [Elijah]? And he saitfi, I am not. Art thou that
prophet? And he answered, No.
John 1:23. He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make straight the way of the Lord . . .
As for "that prophet" referred to in John 1:21, this is usually thought
of as referring to a passage in one of the Deuteronomic discourses at-
tributed to Moses. There, God is quoted as saying:
Deuteronomy 18:18. I will raise them up a Prophet from among
their brethren, like unto thee [Moses], and will put my words in his
mouth . . .
It would seem that the Book of Deuteronomy was actually written in
the reign of Josiah or shortly before (see page I-195 ) and it may be
that this passage was used to refer to someone contemporary with the
Deuteronomist. Josiah may even have been persuaded that the passage
referred to one of those who brought him the book after its "discovery"
in the Temple, and this may have encouraged him to institute the
thorough Yahvist reform that he then carried through.
Nevertheless, by post-Exilic times, this passage seems to have been
accepted by the Jews as Messianic in nature, and it was so accepted by
the Christians, of course, who saw in it a reference to Jesus. That is
why the King James Version capitalizes the word "Prophet" although
the Revised Standard Version does not.
John the Baptist is pictured by the fourth gospel as denying an
identity with that prophet and as therefore denying Messiah-hood once
again.
John 967
The Lamb of Cod
The fourth gospel proceeds, remorselessly, still further. Not only is
John quoted as denying the Messiah-hood for himself, but, after baptiz-
ing Jesus, he accepts the latter as the Messiah, and proclaims him as
such:
John 1:29. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and
smth. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world.
John 1 : 30. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which
is preferred before me . . .
John 1:32. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descend-
ing from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him,
• • • •
John 1:34. ' saw > an & bar e rccorc * tf" 2 * t/iis is the Son of God.
In Mark and Luke, there is no reference to any such recognition at
all on John's part. In Matthew there is a single verse which refers to
John's realization of Jesus' role; for when Jesus comes to be baptized:
Matthew 3:14. . . . John forbad him, saying, I have need to be
baptized of thee, and contest thou to me?
Later, however, Matthew, and Luke too, report that John sent
disciples to inquire as to whether Jesus were the Messiah, something
that would certainly be unnecessary if John had witnessed the Spirit
of God descending upon Jesus like a dove. (And certainly the fourth
gospel at no time makes mention of any such uncertainties on the part
of the Baptist.) The synoptic gospels each report this descent of the
Spirit of God but none of the three indicates in any way, then or later,
that this descent was witnessed by John, or by anyone besides Jesus.
Indeed, the synoptic gospels show the realization of the Messiah-
hood to have developed slowly among Jesus' disciples and, moreover,
clearly record Jesus' carefulness in making no specific and open claim
to the role. It is only at the very end, before Caiaphas, that he admits
he is the Messiah (see page 883) and this, considered by the Jewish
authorities to be blasphemy, is at once sufficient to condemn Jesus to
968
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
death. This view seems, indeed, to be in accord with the historical
reality of the times, for to lay claim to Messiah-hood without a proof
that would satisfy the authorities was virtually sure death. (Just as in
later centuries, to have laid claim to be the new incarnation of Jesus
would have paved the way to the stake or, in modern times, to the
madhouse.)
In the fourth gospel, however, everyone, from John the Baptist on,
is pictured as recognizing Jesus as the Messiah at once. Not only does
Jesus not deny the role but he, himself, proclaims it. Thus, when
a Samaritan woman speaks to Jesus of the Messiah, Jesus answers quite
frankly:
John 4:26. ... I that speak unto thee am he.
This open admission of Messiah-hood by Jesus and by others is
pictured in the fourth gospel as continuing through a period of three
years, in Jerusalem and elsewhere, before Jesus is arrested, condemned,
and executed.
From the standpoint of realistic history, this view is quite impossible.
However, the gospel is presenting theology and not history, and the
theological Jesus, as opposed to the "historical Jesus," is divinity mani-
fest.
In acclaiming Jesus as the Lamb of God, John the Baptist is not
only referring to his Messiah-hood but to the actual form that Messiah-
hood is to take. He is pictured as recognizing Jesus not as the royal
Messiah who will lead the Jews to the ideal kingdom by defeating
their enemies with the weapons of war, but rather as the suffering and
tortured "servant" of Second Isaiah (see page I-5 51 ) .
The reference to Jesus as the Lamb of God seems to turn upon a
particular verse in one of these suffering servant passages:
Isaiah 53:7. He [the servant of God] was oppressed, and he was
afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the
slaughter . . .
Nathanael
The manner in which Jesus collects his disciples is described in the
fourth gospel, in quite a different way than in the synoptic gospels. In
the synoptic gospels the disciples are selected by Jesus in Galilee; in
john 969
John, where Jesus is throughout treated with greater dignity, it is the
disciples who come seeking after him.
Thus, John the Baptist acclaims Jesus as the Lamb of God a second
time in the presence of two of his disciples and they instantly leave
the Baptist and follow Jesus:
John 1 140. One of the two which heard John [the Baptist] speak,
and followed him [Jesus], was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
The other is not named and he is traditionally assumed to be John
son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple and the author of the gospel. His
modesty is viewed as causing him to refrain from naming himself.
There is no indication in the synoptic gospels that any of the apostles
were originally followers of the Baptist. Still, this clearly fits the purpose
of the fourth gospel, since it shows that the Baptist's followers, guided
by the Baptist himself, clearly prefer Jesus to John, and this further
weakens the Baptist party among the evangelist's opponents.
The first two disciples spread the word:
John 1:41. He [Andrew] -first findeth his own brother Simon, and
saith unto him, We have found the Messias [Messiah] . . .
This quite negates one of the great moments in the synoptic gospels
—where Peter confesses his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (see page
856), a confession which rums Jesus toward Jerusalem and the cruci-
fixion. Here, instead, Peter is told at the outset that Jesus is the Messiah
and there is no room later in this gospel for any slowly attained
realization of this belief by either Peter or any other disciple. The na-
ture of Jesus in the view of the fourth gospel is too exalted to admit of
any such slow or gradual realization; the realization must come at
once.
Furthermore, the acceptance of these first disciples does not take
place in Galilee, but on the site in the Trans-Jordan where John the
Baptist was conducting the baptismal rite:
John 1:28. These things were done . . . beyond Jordan, where
John was baptizing.
And as though to emphasize that fact, Jesus is then described as
being on his way to return to Galilee:
John 1:43. The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee,
and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
970
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
John 1 144. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and
Peter.
Presumably, Philip had been told of the Messiah by Andrew and
Peter and he in turn spreads the news still further:
John 1:45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We
have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write . . .
Nathanael is not listed among the apostles in the synoptic gospels;
indeed, his name does not occur outside the fourth gospel. On the other
hand, Bartholomew, who is listed among the apostles in all three of the
synoptic gospels, is not mentioned in John. Since in all three of the
synoptic gospels, Bartholomew is named directly after Philip:
Mark 3:18. And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew . . .
and since here in John there seems a special relationship between
Philip and Nathanael, it is customary to identify Nathanael with
Bartholomew. Since Bartholomew means "son of Talmai" and may be
a patronymic only, Nathaniel may be the actual given name. The
apostle would then be Nathanael Bartholomew ("Nathaniel, son of
Talmai").
It may also be that Nathaniel is not one of the twelve disciples but
is some disciple outside this inner circle of twelve.
The fourth gospel does not list the twelve apostles at all, the only
gospel not to do so. The very word "apostle" does not occur in the
fourth gospel. It may well be that John soft-pedals the tradition of
the twelve apostles as far as possible, since the analogy there is to the
twelve tribes of Israel, an analogy long outmoded by events, at the
time the gospel was written.
The Son of Joseph
Philip identifies Jesus clearly and unmistakably, when he reports of
him to Nathanael:
John 1:45. Philip findeth Natlianael, and saith unto him, We
have found him, . . . Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
JOHN 971
No attempt is made, in this gospel, to refer to the virgin birth at
Bethlehem. This is not because John is unaware that among the Jews
the birth at Bethlehem was a necessary requirement for a true Messiah,
for upon hearing this identification of the Messiah "of whom Moses in
the law, and the prophets, did write," Nathanael is at once dubious:
John 1:46. And Nathanael said unto him [Philip], Can there any
good thing come out of Nazareth? . . .
This might have been the contempt of a man of Jerusalem for a
Galilean provincial, but it wasn't. Nathanael is himself a Galilean ac-
cording to John. At one point, where several disciples are listed, John
says:
John 21:2. . . . Simon Peter, and Thomas catted Didymus, and
Nathanael of Cana in Galilee . . .
Or Nathanael's remark might simply imply that no prophet ever
came out of Galilee, as is stated later in the gospel, when the Pharisees
are quoted as saying to one of their own number who spoke in
defense of Jesus:
John 7:52. . . . Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for
out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
But that isn't so, either. The prophet Jonah (the historical prophet
of the time of Jeroboam II, on whom the fable with the whale was
later grafted) was from the region, even though it was not called
Galilee at the time:
2 Kings 14:25. . . . Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which
was of Gath-hepher.
In fact, Gath-hepher was not only in Galilee but it is usually identi-
fied with a town only three miles from Nazareth.
Or it might be (as is sometimes suggested) that Nazareth itself had
a bad reputation among Galileans generally. Perhaps it was considered
a city of fools, like the Gotham of English folk tales. And perhaps this
reputation was particularly strong in Nathanael's home town of Cana
which was close enough to Nazareth to allow of the kind of neighborly
rivalry one gets between Minneapolis and St. Paul, or between Fort
Worth and Dallas. There is, however, nothing concrete on which to base
such a belief.
972
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO T II E BIBLE
It seems most likely that the remark simply refers to the fact that
Jews did not expect the Messiah to come from anywhere but Bethlehem.
This, too, is stated flatly later in the gospel where the opinions of the
people generally are given.
John 7:41. . . . But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
John 7:42. Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of
the seed of David, and out of the town 0} Bethlehem, where David
was?
It seems logical to suppose that Nathanael, at first hearing that Jesus
was of Nazareth, had the same doubt. The evangelist does not bother
to counter these doubts by any remark concerning the birth at Beth-
lehem. Perhaps he felt the birth at Bethlehem was something that con-
cerned only Jews and he intended his own gospel to have a universal
importance.
Once Nathanael meets Jesus, he is at once brought over:
John 1:49. Nathanael . . . saith unto him [Jesus], Rabbi, thou
art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
The word "rabbi" used here means "my master" or "my teacher."
It is precisely the term of respect one would use for another more
learned than himself. In the theocratic society of Judca, it bears some-
what the same aura of respect that the title "professor" does in our
own more secular society. Earlier in the chapter, John translates the
word. When the first two disciples approach Jesus:
John 1:38. . . . They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being
interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
In the other gospels, the King James Version usually gives the
Greek equivalent only, so that Jesus is routinely addressed as "Master."
Thus, Peter addressing Jesus at the sight of the transfiguration, is
quoted as saying:
Mark 9:5. And Peter . . . said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to
be here . . .
The equivalent verse in Matthew uses another term of respect, one
of more secular tang and perhaps more suitable to the divinity that was
gathering about Jesus in the eyes of his disciples:
JOHN 973
Matthew 17:4. . . . Peter . . . said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for
us to be here . . .
Another form of addresses is "rabboni," meaning "my great master"
or "my lord and master." This is used of the resurrected Jesus, by
Mary Magdalene:
John 20:16. . . . She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni;
which is to say, Master.
Cana
Once back in Galilee, Jesus performs his first miracle — one which
is found only in John. It takes place at a wedding festival:
Early Journeys of Christ
John 2:1. . . . there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the
mother of fesus was there:
John 2:2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the
marriage.
974
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Cana, mentioned only in John, is close to Nazareth. It is usually
identified with a site about four miles northeast, though some favor
a site some nine miles north of Nazareth. It is this town of which
Nathanael is a native.
Oddly enough, John's reference to "the mother of Jesus" is charac-
teristic of him. Not only does he not refer to the virgin birth and
make Jesus the son of Joseph without qualification, but he never names
Mary. His is the only gospel in which Mary is not named; she is re-
ferred to only as "the mother of Jesus."
Mary appears in the legends of Jesus' birth and childhood in Mat-
thew and Luke. On one occasion she is mentioned by all three synoptic
gospels. This is when she and other members of the family of Jesus try to
see him when he is surrounded by his disciples, and Jesus turns them
away. That is all.
In John, however, Mary plays a somewhat greater role; and, as is
characteristic of John's view of things, she is aware of her son's role and
of his ability to work miracles. She tells Jesus that the party is out of
wine and instructs the servants to do whatever he tells them to do.
Jesus then proceeds to turn water into wine (and, as the gospel care-
fully explains, into very good wine indeed).
The Jews' Passover
In the synoptic gospels only one visit to Jerusalem is recorded of
Jesus, and that takes place in the last week of his life, on the oc-
casion of a Passover.
John, however, records several visits to Jerusalem, including no less
than three Passovers. The first Passover visit takes place immediately
after the miracle of turning water into wine.
John 2:13. And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up
to Jerusalem . . .
John refers to the festival as "the Jews' passover," for his Gentile
audience needed the qualifying adjective to understand what was being
spoken of. He is even more carefully explanatory at other times:
John 6:4. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
Luke, also writing to a Gentile audience, must also explain:
john 975
Luke 22:1. Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is
called the Passover.
Matthew, on the other hand, writing for Jews, feels the need of no
explanation:
Matthew 26:2. Ye know that after two days is the feast of the
passover . . .
A more important point is that John is writing in a time when Chris-
tianity has become almost entirely Gentile and completely withdrawn
from Judaism and out of sympathy with the Jews.
In the synoptic gospels, it is the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes
who oppose Jesus on doctrinal points who conspire against him and
bring about his crucifixion. It is they who are blamed and not the Jews
generally, for it is from the Jews that Jesus' disciples are also drawn.
John, however, seems to feel that party distinctions would be lost on
his audience, and usually refers to Jesus' opponents simply as "Jews."
Thus, it is the "Jews," rather than the Sadducees of the Temple, who
are pictured as questioning John the Baptist:
John 1:19. . . . the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusa-
lem . . .
And it is the "Jews" rather than the scribes and Pharisees, who ques-
tion Jesus on the first visit to Jerusalem:
John 2:18. Then answered the ]ews and said unto him [Jesus],
What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
Even Jesus' disciples are described as referring to Jesus' opponents
simply as "Jews," as though they themselves were not also Jews. Thus,
when Jesus planned to go once more into Judea:
John 11:8. His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late
sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
Then, too, parents whose son had been cured by Jesus deny
knowing how the cure came about, and the reason is presented by
John as follows:
John 9:22. These words spake his parents, because they feared
the Jews . . .
although the parents were themselves Jews, of course.
976
ASIMOV's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
This general reference to Jews in John, where the synoptics speak of
specific parties among the Jews, helped rouse antipathy against Jews
on the part of Christians in later centuries. It helped give rise to the
common oversimplification that "the Jews killed Christ," as though all
Jews of Jesus' time were equally responsible and as though all of Jesus'
early disciples from Peter to Paul were not themselves Jews.
To be sure, John does on occasion speak of Jews who follow Jesus:
John 8:31. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on
him . . .
The Temple
On the occasion of this first visit to Jerusalem, John describes Jesus as
driving the money-changers from the Temple, placing that event near
the beginning of his mission rather than at the end, as in the synoptic
gospels. Those who refuse to admit inconsistencies among the gospels
are forced to conclude that there were two such episodes, one near
the beginning, and one near the end.
The "Jews" (that is, the Sadducee officials of the Temple) are
naturally upset over this action of Jesus, and demand some evidence
from him that he is indeed acting under divine inspiration.
John 2:19. Jesus answered . . . , Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up.
Jesus is not quoted as making any such statement in the synoptic
gospels. In fact, quite the reverse. Mark and Matthew record that a
similar statement was falsely attributed to Jesus as part of the attempt
to condemn him as a blasphemer before Caiaphas.
Mark 14:57. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against
him, saying,
Mark 14:58. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that
is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made
without hands.
Then, when Jesus was on the cross, he was mocked with this state-
ment:
john 977
Marie 15:29. And they that passed by [the cross] railed on him . . .
saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three
days,
Mark 15:30. Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
But John accepts this as a true saying of Jesus and interprets it as a
reference to the resurrection:
John 2:21. But he [Jesus] spake of the temple of his body.
In connection with this remark concerning the Temple, John men-
tions the literal-minded retort of the priests— a retort which has been
used for chronological purposes:
John 2:20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple
in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Actually, construction of the Second Temple was begun in 538 b.c. in
the reign of Cyrus of Persia and completed in 516 b.c. in the reign of
Darius (see page I-449), so that it was only twenty-two years in build-
ing.
Herod the Great, however, in his attempt to gain the good will of
his subjects, initiated a vast restoration and enlargement of the Temple,
one which amounted, virtually, to a rebuilding. This restoration was
begun in 19 b.c. and it was not actually completed until a.d. 63— three
years before the beginning of the war that was to destroy that same
Temple forever. The Temple was eighty-two years in the restoring.
But suppose it had been continuing for forty-six yean at the time of
Jesus' first Passover visit to Jerusalem and that the priests were saying,
in essence, "So far just the temple restoration alone has been proceed-
ing for forty-six years and here you offer to build it from scratch in
three days I"
If so, then the year of the visit would be a.d. 27. The next two Pass-
over visits recorded in John would then be in a.d. 28 and 29 and if the
last of the three were the one of the crucifixion, that would agree with
the chronology as given in Luke in terms of the reign of Tiberius (see
page 936).
978
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Nicodemus
Oddly enough, on the first occasion in which John does specify a
Pharisee, it is one that he depicts as sympathetic to Jesus (and one who
is nowhere mentioned in the synoptic gospels):
John 3:1. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus,
a ruler of the Jews:
John 3:2. The same came to fesus by night, and said unto him,
Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God . . .
He asked questions of Jesus and listened to the answers which were
not given in the form of parables as in the synoptic gospels, but rather
in philosophic discourse that Nicodemus found difficult to follow.
Nicodemus was apparently swayed by Jesus' statements, however,
for later when the Pharisees planned to put Jesus out of the way for
blasphemy, Nicodemus rose and insisted on a fair trial, thus blunting
the purpose of Jesus' opponents for the time. (It was Nicodemus who
was mockingly asked if he too were from Galilee.)
After the crucifixion, Nicodemus, according to John, took care of
Jesus' body, along with Joseph of Arimathea (see page 895) , and saw
to its proper burial. In early Christian tradition, Nicodemus is supposed
to have turned Christian. An apocryphal "Gospel According to Nico-
demus" is attributed to him. It dealt with the trial and execution of
Jesus, his descent into hell, and his resurrection.
Samaria
Apparently, Jesus' success in attracting followers in Judea attracted
the attention of the Pharisees and Jesus thought it best to return to
Galilee.
John 4:3. He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.
John 4:4. And he must needs go through Samaria.
In Matthew and Mark, gospels written for Jewish audiences, Jesus
is depicted as sharing the general Jewish hostility to Samaritans. Even
JOHN
979
Samaria
980
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
in Luke, written for Gentiles and depicting individual Samaritans
with sympathy, it is indicated (see page 944) that the Samaritans, gen-
erally, oppose Jesus.
Not so in John. Here, in the most Gentile of the gospels, Jesus is
depicted as speaking freely to a Samaritan woman (something at
which his disciples are shocked) and as offering her salvation on the
same basis with Jews. This Ets John's thesis that Jesus has come to
save all men, and not the Jews alone. If that thesis were not made
clear, his gospel would be valueless to his audience.
From the vantage point of a full generation after the destruction of
the Temple, John has Jesus point out that the parochialism of both
Samaritans (worshipping on Mount Gerizim) and Jews (worshipping
on Mount Zion) was soon to have no meaning:
John 4:21. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour
cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem,
worship the Father.
Jesus calmly announces himself as the Messiah, and the Samaritan
woman tells others of her people. As is characteristic of John's gospel,
the Samaritans at once believe, and accept Jesus not as a Messiah sent
to the Jews only, but to all the world (again String John's view and
his audience).
John 4:40. . . . the Samaritans . . . besought him [Jesus] that
he would tarry with them . . .
John 4:41. And many more believed . . .
John 4:42. And said unto the woman, Now we believe . . . and
know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
Once Jesus is back in Galilee, the evangelist mentions in an aside the
well-known saying of Jesus that a prophet had no honor in his own
country and also later states, again as an aside, the disbelief in Jesus
on the part of his close relations:
John 7:5. For neither did his [Jesus'] brethren believe in him.
John does not, however, include the account (found in all the
synoptic gospels) of Jesus' failure to impress his townsmen at Nazareth.
Such a failure would not fit the picture of Jesus as drawn by John.
JOHN
981
Jewry
A second trip is then made to Jerusalem, where Jesus heals a
crippled man on the Sabbath and gets in trouble with the conservative
elements among the Jews for having violated the Sabbath. In the
discussion thereafter, John has Jesus implying himself to be the Messiah,
and driving the conservative elements into a fury at this seeming
blasphemy.
Again, Jesus returns to Galilee as a matter of prudence and there,
near the time of a second Passover, performs other miracles, including
the feeding of thousands of people by means of five loaves of bread
and two fish— the only miracle described in all four gospels.
Jesus remains in Galilee for a time —
John 7:1. ... /or he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews
sought to kill him.
The expression "Jewry" is used only three times in the King James
Version. Only one of these is in the Old Testament— in the very
late Book of Daniel, where the Babylonian king asks Daniel:
Daniel 5:13. . . . Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children
of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of
Jewry?
The second occasion is in Luke, where Jesus is accused of sedition
before Pilate:
Luke 23:5. . . . He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout
all Jewry . . .
"Jewry" is an archaic term for Judah or Judea and in the Revised
Standard Version, the word is rendered "Judah" in the verse from
Daniel, and as "Judea" in the two verses from the gospels.
"Jewry" in modem ears does not have quite the same connotation
as Judea. The latter is a geographical term and it was politically
distinct from Galilee in Jesus' time. Jesus' priestly enemies were power-
ful in Judea ("Jewry") but not in Galilee, and Jesus was clearly safer
in his home province.
But if "Judea" is clear in its meaning, "Jewry" is so no longer. In
982
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
modem ears, it sounds rather analogous to the word "Christendom." It
seems to cover all the area in which Jews live; it seems indeed to be a
way of saying "all the Jews." Place this in conjunction with the
following phrase, "because the Jews sought to kill him" (the synoptic
gospels would have said, "because the Pharisees sought to kill him"),
and the impression is given of the malignant hostility toward Jesus on
the part of all the Jews— something that is clearly not the case.
Abraham
But Jesus did return to Jerusalem for a third time, at the time of the
Feast of the Tabernacles, and his teachings became ever more bold.
Indeed, he finally pronounced himself to be the Messiah in the
plainest terms.
John 8:54. Jesus answered, . . .
• « • •
John 8:56. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he
saw it, and was glad.
John 8:57. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
To the Jewish leaders, blasphemy had reached the ultimate, for Jesus
was claiming to be not merely the Messiah, but God himself. The
deliberate use of the words "I am" in Jesus' climactic answer:
John 8:58. Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.
harks back to God's announcement of his own name to Moses:
Exodus 3:14. And God said unto Moses . . . Thus shalt thou say
unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
With that, many Jews must have felt perfectly justified in attempting
to stone Jesus, for stoning was the traditional method of execution for
blasphemers:
Leviticus 24:16. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord,
he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall cer-
tainly stone him . . .
john 983
Deductions are made concerning Jesus' age from the comment to
the effect that Jesus was "not yet fifty years old" and some suppose
that he was not far short of fifty at this time. It is even possible to
argue that he was forty-six years old by beginning with John's comment
that when Jesus spoke of re-erecting the Temple, he was speaking of
his own body (sec page 977) . Therefore, when the Pharisees said it
had taken forty-six years to build the Temple, might they not have
meant that Jesus was forty-six years old? It is difficult to take this
argument seriously, however, for surely, even if Jesus were speaking of
his body, the Pharisees weren't, and to use their statement as a basis for
deducing Jesus' age is a great deal to ask of a conversation that was
supposedly going on at cross-purposes. It seems much more natural to
accept Luke's flat statement (see page 937) that Jesus was about thirty
years old when he began his mission.
Still, if Jesus were forty-six at the time of his death, and if the
crucifixion did take place in a.d. 29, as Luke indicates (see page 937) ,
then Christ must have been bom in 17 B.C. There is nothing clearly
impossible about this, except that basing it on the comment "Thou
art not yet fifty" offers a very thin foundation. The expression might
merely be a metaphoric way of saying, "You have not yet attained to
years of wisdom," or "You are not even an old man"— and this can be
said of a thirty-three-year-old even more forcefully than of a forty-six-
year-old.
Jesus goes on to make additional claims to Messiah-hood and
divinity. At one point he says:
John 10:11. I am the good shepherd . . .
This harks back to a passage in the writings of the prophet Ezekiel in
which God is quoted as denouncing the wickedness of the Jewish
leaders, who are described metaphorically as wicked shepherds:
Ezekiel 34:2. Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of
Israel . . . Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselvesl
should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
Ezekiel goes on to quote God as offering himself to be the shepherd
who would save his people:
Ezekiel 34:11. . . .J, even I, wUl both search my sheep, and seek
them out.
984 ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Ezekiel 34:12. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock ... so will 1
seek out my sheep . . .
Then in speaking of the Messianic kingdom, the Messiah is spoken
of with the same metaphor:
Ezekiel 34:23. And J will set up one shepherd over them, and he
shall feed them, even my servant David . . .
In speaking of himself as the good shepherd, then, Jesus is naming
himself either the Messiah or God, or both. If the point is not clear, he
makes it flatly a little later:
John 10:30. I and my Father are one.
and again he narrowly escapes a stoning, and retires to the Trans-
Jordan.
Lazarus
It is serious news that now calls Jesus back to Judea for a fourth time
as the third and last Passover of John's gospel approaches. A friend was
seriously ill.
John 11:1. Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of
Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
• • • •
John 11:3. Therefore his sisters [Mary and Martha] sent unto him,
saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
This Lazarus is not mentioned anywhere in the synoptic gospels,
which is odd, for the event that is to follow is pictured by John as the
very climax of Jesus' miracles on Earth. Yet if it is indeed the climax,
why the total silence of the other gospels?
Some have suggested that the story of Lazarus is an allegorical one,
intended to show, in concrete form, the power of Jesus' teaching. For
that reason, it might be argued, John simply borrowed material for
the purpose. The name Lazarus he might have adopted from the
beggar in Luke's parable (see page 946) , the one who went to heaven
while the rich man went to hell.
Why the beggar? Well, when the rich man is in hell, he asks that
john 985
Lazarus be sent back to Earth to warn the rich man's five brothers of
the torment awaiting them. But Abraham, from heaven, assures the rich
man that:
Luke 16:31. . . . If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither
will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
There is thus a connection between Lazarus the beggar, and the
notion of being raised from the dead, and the tale, in John, of Lazarus
of Bethany who is raised from the dead by Jesus.
There are raisings from the dead in the other gospels. In Luke, for
instance, there is the tale of Jesus' raising the dead son of a widow:
Luke 7:14. . . . And he [Jesus] said, Young man, I say unto thee,
Arise.
Luke 7:15. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak . . .
The story in Luke is told quickly, however, and is placed near the
beginning of Jesus' career. It is no more than on a par with Jesus' other
miracles of healing.
In John, however, the analogous story of a raising from the dead is
told in much more dramatic detail and is placed at the end of Jesus'
career, as a fitting climax to the gathering force of his miracles and self-
manifestation.
By the time Jesus reaches Bethany, Lazarus is dead and buried and
has remained in the tomb for days. Jesus has the stone blocking the
tomb rolled away.
John 11:43. ' • • he [Jesus] cried with a loud voice, Lazarus,
come forth.
John 11:44. he that was dead came forth . . .
There are those who suspect that since Lazarus is defined as "he
whom thou lovest," that he is none other than the Beloved Disciple and
the author of the fourth gospel. It might be possible to argue from that
that Lazarus knew the events of the raising firsthand and included
them, whereas the other evangelists did not.
This, however, seems weak, for the episode is described as having
been public and as having achieved such fame as to be the final straw
that determined the Pharisees to have Jesus convicted and executed.
How could the synoptic gospels overlook such a thing?
986
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Caiaphas
The Jewish religious leaders see clearly now that if Jesus is not
stopped, those who flocked to him in the aftermath of the Lazarus
miracle would become uncontrollable. They feared a rebellion and a
consequent catastrophe to follow:
John 11:48. If we let him [Jesus] thus alone, all men will believe
on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place
and nation.
John 11:49. • • ■ Caiaphas . . . said unto them . . .
John 11:50. . . .it is expedient for us, that one man should die
for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
This statement of Caiaphas' is to be found only in John, who uses
it to fit his own scheme of things. He points out that Caiaphas, who
was, after all, high priest, was engaging in unconscious prophecy; that
Jesus would indeed die in order that salvation might be brought to all
people— but not to the Jews only:
John 11:52. And not for that nation only, but that also he
[Jesus] should gather together in one the children of God that were
scattered abroad.
Of course, by the "children of God that were scattered abroad" one
might suppose that John meant the Jews dwelling outside Judea. It is
equally possible, however, to suppose it to refer to the Gentiles who
lived all over the world and who, by accepting Jesus, would become the
"children of God"— the spiritual heirs of Abraham.
If there is doubt here, it is removed by an incident described shortly
afterward. Even while the Jewish leaders are planning to have Jesus
executed, the Erst Gentile disciples arrive:
John 12:20. And there were certain Greeks among them that
came up to worship at the [Passover] feast:
John 12:21. The same came therefore to Philip . . . and desired
him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
Sometimes the word "Greeks" in English translations of the Bible
means Jews from Egypt or elsewhere who have Greek as their native
john 987
language. The original Greek of the New Testament, however, uses
slightly different forms to distinguish between men of Jewish birth who
speak Greek, and men of Greek birth who had been converted to
Judaism. In this case, it seems to be men of Greek birth— converted
Gentiles— who are meant.
And they ask to see Jesus. The Gentiles begin to turn toward Jesus, in
John's picture of events, just as the Jews are about to turn finally away
from him. And it is this decisive turn that marks to Jesus the time of the
death and resurrection. The disciples bring word to him that the
Greeks wish to see him:
John 12:23. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come,
that the Son of man should be glorified.
John indicates plainly, then, that the direction of Christianity is
toward the Gentile and away from the Jew— as is the theme of his
entire gospel, in fact, from the very hymn that opens it:
John 1:11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name . . .
And that, surely, is what John's audience wanted to hear.
The Comforter
John describes the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, though the
passage is not as convincing as in the synoptic gospels, where it seems
to be the only entry.
John does not, however, describe a last supper during Jesus' final
night of freedom, or the prayer at Gethsemane. He does not have Jesus
pray that the fated cup might be allowed to pass from him (see page
966). That would be not in accord with the divine Jesus pictured by
John. Indeed, John has Jesus speak in such a way as to seem to con-
tradict, deliberately, that passage in the synoptic gospels:
John 12:27. Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father,
save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
Jesus washes the feet of his disciples (as a lesson in humility, not
found in the synoptic gospels) and then continues to deliver self-
988
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
assured philosophical discourses. During these, he makes statements
that helped give rise to thoughts of an imminent second coming
among the early Christians. Thus, he tells them, with reference to his
forthcoming death:
John 14:2. ... 7 go to prepare a place for you.
John 14:3. And ... I will come again, and receive you unto
myself . . .
This might be interpreted as meaning he would come, unseen, for
each disciple, as that disciple lay dying, to lead him to his prepared
place in heaven. There was, however, certainly a tendency to assume
that this (and other verses in the gospels) implied a return of Christ in
glory, and one that was not long delayed either. This return would
fulfill the same purposes as the Jews had believed would be fulfilled by
the Messiah.
Jesus is quoted as making another promise:
John 14:16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:17. Even the Spirit of truth . . .
This is usually interpreted as meaning that Christians would be
guided by the Holy Spirit once Jesus was taken away from them and
that this Spirit would comfort them and guide them aright.
Nevertheless, there were not lacking those among the early Christians
who personified the Comforter (or "Paraclete" as the word is in Greek).
It seemed to them that Jesus was promising a new and still later
Messiah who would take on human appearance, just as Moses was
considered to have prophesied Jesus in his reference to a Prophet (see
page 304).
Thus, somewhere about a.d. 160 (about half a century after the gospel
of St. John had been written) a Christian of Asia Minor named
Montanus claimed to be the incarnation of the Comforter.
Montanus was rejected as a false Messiah by the Christian leadership,
just as Jesus had been rejected by the Jewish leadership. And just as
Jesus slowly gathered disciples who grew in numbers after his death, so
did Montanus. The sect of Montanists, puritanical in doctrine, was
particularly strong in Carthage and its environs, and among them was
Tertullian, the first important Christian leader to write in Latin.
john 989
However, Christianity was wider spread than Judaism had been in
Jesus' time, and Christianity was not weakened by a catastrophe
analogous to the Roman destruction of Judea. Consequently the
Montanists were kept in check. Furthermore, they expected an immi-
nent second coming of some sort, and as this did not take place, they
slowly withered. Still, some remained until the days of the Moslem
conquest of North Africa in the seventh century wiped out Christianity
in that region altogether.
Pilate
The story of Jesus' capture and trial is essentially the same in John
as in the synoptic gospels, but with an important change in atmosphere.
The divine Jesus portrayed by John is by no means the mute and
suffering servant pictured by the Second Isaiah and the synoptic
gospels. Instead, Jesus is completely self-possessed and in control of
events at all times. He goes to his death deliberately.
Thus, he boldly faces those who have come to arrest him and calmly
announces his identity even before Judas has a chance to indicate him.
And when Pilate asks him if he is the King of the Jews, Jesus questions
Pilate in turn and has no difficulty in dominating the exchange:
John 18:34. l esus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself,
or did others tell it thee of me?
John 18:35. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and
the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Thus Pilate is clearly forced to confess that he knows nothing of the
affair and that he is merely a mouthpiece of the Jewish priesthood. In
this way, John, writing for his Gentile audience, does more than any of
the synoptic gospels (even Luke) to lift the blame for the crucifixion
from the Gentiles and place it on the Jews.
This is made even plainer at a later stage of the trial when Pilate
questions Jesus again. Jesus is now silent and Pilate says desperately:
John 19:10. . . . Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not
that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
990
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
John 19:11. Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all
against me, except it were given thee from above; therefore he that
delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
In other words, Pilate is again pictured as a puppet who can do only
what he must do, in accordance with the Roman law (or with the
will of God). In either case, since he has not been taught the Scriptures,
since he knows nothing of the Messiah, and since he has not been
exposed to Jesus' preaching, he cannot know what he is doing. The
greater sin belongs to those who, knowing of the Scriptures, the
Messiah, and Jesus' teaching, nevertheless handed Jesus over to the
implacable grinding of Roman law. The expression "he that delivered
me" is singular and it may indicate Caiaphas the high priest (though
some suggest Judas Iscariot, or even Satan).
If the reader takes the expression to refer to Caiaphas, then here
again would be a statement from Jesus that it is the Jewish authority,
rather than the Roman authority, that is truly responsible for the
crucifixion.
To make this still clearer, John has Pilate show even greater
reluctance to carry through the task than even Luke does, and has him
yield to the priestly party only after political threats which are not
found in the synoptic gospels, but which John's Gentile audience
would thoroughly understand:
John 19:12. . . . the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man
go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king
speaketh against Caesar.
In other words, the priestly party is prepared to accuse Pilate of
treason if he acquits Jesus. An accusation of treason in the days of the
suspicious Tiberius was often equivalent to conviction.
John even has the priests making what the nationalist Jews of the
time would consider a treasonable statement to their own cause in their
anxiety to enforce the crucifixion. Jesus is mockingly produced to the
crowd as the Messianic king:
John 19:15. . . . Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your
King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar.
They are thus pictured as denying the Messianic hope altogether
and the case against them, as carefully constructed by John, is complete.
JOHN 991
The Spear
John's version of the crucifixion differs from that pictured in the
synoptic gospels in a number of respects. Jesus bears his own cross. No
one is described as having to help him. The humiliating aspects of the
crucifixion— including the jeering of the crowd— are omitted. Jesus'
mother, Mary, is at the site of the crucifixion (though her presence
there is not mentioned in any of the other gospels) and Jesus is
sufficiently self-possessed, even on the cross, to place her in the charge
of the Beloved Disciple, who is also there.
John, like Luke, omits the last cry of despair (see page 894) . Such
despair would be unthinkable in the picture of Jesus drawn by John.
Instead, John has Jesus merely announce the completion of his mission:
John 19:30. . . . he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head,
and gave up the ghost.
Certain events following Jesus' death are given in John, but not in
the synoptic gospels. John explains that the priests want the crucified
individuals (Jesus and the two robbers) down from the cross that very
evening, in order not to profane the coming Passover. For that reason,
soldiers are sent to break the legs of the crucified men in order that
they might be thus killed and taken down. (Actually, however it
sounds to us, such leg-breaking seems to be intended as an act of
mercy. Those who were crucified might otherwise linger a number of
days in gradually increasing torment.)
Jesus, however, had died already, apparently sooner than was ex-
pected; sufficiently soon, indeed, to make one soldier suspicious that
Jesus might be playing possum:
John 19:33. But when they [the soldiers] came to Jesus, and saw
that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
John 19:34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came there out blood and water.
John introduces these items to make a very important theological
point; one, apparently, which was disputed by some factions among the
992
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
early Christians. He therefore emphatically defends the truth of what he
has just said:
John 19:35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is
true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
John then goes on to explain the significance of this vehemently
defended account of the leg-breaking that did not come to pass and the
spear thrust that did:
John 19:36. For these things were done, that the scripture should
be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
John 19:37. And again another scripture saith, They shall look
on him whom they pierced.
The first quotation is from the Book of Psalms. In one which
praises the care of God for those who trust in him, there is the verse:
Psalm 34:20. He [the Lord] keepeth all his [the righteous one's]
bones; not one of them is broken.
And in the later, apocalyptic chapters of Zechariah, reference is made
to some not clearly defined person who is mistreated:
Zechariah 12:10. . . . they shall look upon me whom they have
pierced, and they shall mourn for him . . .
But this anxiety to fit the events of Jesus' life into the various
utterances found in the Old Testament is not really characteristic of
John. He is not Matthew and he is not writing for Matthew's audience.
The reference must be wider still. Jesus was crucified at the Passover
festival, and at the beginning of the fourth gospel John the Baptist
has referred to Jesus as the "Lamb of God" (see page 967) . Well, there
is an association of the lamb and Passover.
In God's instructions to Israel on the occasion of the first Passover,
on the eve of the Exodus from Egypt, Moses is told:
Exodus 12:3. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying,
In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a
lamb . . .
The lamb is to be sacrificed on the eve of Passover and its blood
smeared on the doorposts:
JOHN W
Exodus 12:13. . . . and when I see the blood, I will pass over
you, and the plague shall not be upon you . . .
Later, in the same chapter, a further instruction is given concerning
the lamb:
Exodus 12:46. . . . neither shall ye break a bone thereof.
This is in accordance with the general rule that all animals sacrificed
to God must be in perfect condition and without blemish:
Deuteronomy 17:1. Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy
Cod any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavoured-
ness . . .
John's analogy seems to be clear. The crucifixion of Jesus on the eve
of Passover is a new and greater sacrifice. In place of the unblemished
lamb, always a symbol of the pure and innocent, there is the un-
blemished Lamb of God, the pure and innocent Jesus. Not a bone of
Jesus was broken but the blood of Jesus had to be seen in accordance
with Exodus 12:13 anc * 12:46 respectively. Hence the soldiers did not
break Jesus' legs and did draw blood with the spear.
The fact that the sacrifice was so much greater — Jesus rather than an
ordinary lamb — could be argued as indicating the purpose to be equiva-
lently greater, all mankind rather than the Jews only. This would fit
John's scheme of things and would account for the manner in which he
insists his account of the spear is true.
Another connotation of this analogy is that a lamb was sometimes
used as a sin offering; a sacrifice meant to atone for the sin and clear the
sinner before God:
Leviticus 4:27. And if any one of the common people sin . . .
Leviticus 4:32. And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering . . .
Jesus is the unblemished Lamb sacrificed as a sin-offering for all
mankind and this gives a further significance to the manner in which
John the Baptist first greets Jesus (according to the fourth gospel):
John 1:29. . . . John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
994
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Thomas
The story of the resurrection is told by John in greater detail than is
found in any of the other gospels. (Apparently, the later the gospel, the
more detailed the story of the resurrection.)
The most dramatic account of the initial doubts of the apostles is
given here in connection with Thomas:
John 20:24. ^ ut Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was
not with them when Jesus came.
John 20:25. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have
seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands
the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
Thomas was granted his desire and accepted the resurrection, but it
is this passage which adds the phrase "doubting Thomas" to our
language, a phrase that has come to be used for any notorious skeptic.
The surname Didymus means "twin," and it would seem then that
"Thomas the Twin" must have had a twin brother or sister. The
Bible does not mention any such twin, though legend has been busy
(some even maintaining that Thomas was a twin brother of Jesus).
It may be significant that only John uses this surname. Thomas is
merely Thomas when he is mentioned in the synoptic gospels. Perhaps
the "twin" is not a physical reference at all, but refers to Thomas
being "of two minds"; that is, of skeptical tendencies, generally. Perhaps
then, "Thomas called Didymus" is merely the evangelist's way of
saying "Doubting Thomas."
9. ACTS
THEOPHILUS * MATTHIAS * PENTECOST • TONGUES " PARTHIANS AND MEDES •
ANANIAS * GAMALIEL • STEPHEN • PHHJP ■ SIMON MAGUS * CANDACE * SAUL
OF TARSUS * DAMASCUS " BARNABAS ' JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER • LYDDA *
CORNELIUS " ANTIOCH ■ CLAUDIUS CAESAR " HEROD ACRIPPA I " CYPRUS '
PAPHOS * PAUL * PAMPHYLIA " PISIDIA " LYCAONIA ■ ATT ALIA • SILAS *
TIMOTHY • PHRYCIA AND CALATIA • TROAS " MACEDONIA » PHHJPPI " LYDIA '
THESSALONICA ■ BEREA * ATHENS " EPICUREANS AND STOICS ' DIONYSIUS
THE AREOPAGITE ' CORINTH • AQUILA • GAIXIO * EPHESUS " APOLLOS * DIANA
OP THE EPHESIANS * MILETUS • RHODES • FELIX * ANTCPATRIS " DRUSHXA *
FESTUS • HEROD ACRIPPA U • MYRA • CRETE • MF.MTA •' SYRACUSE "
RHECIUM * ROME
TheophUu8
Following the four gospels— the four versions of the life of Jesus-
comes a book which is for the most part a straightforward history and is
particularly valuable for that reason.
It deals with the slow growth of Christianity during the generation
that followed the crucifixion of Jesus— from its beginnings in Jerusalem
until its slowly widening influence finally reached Rome itself. In so
doing, it indicates the steady shift of Christianity away from its national
Jewish foundation to the status of a universal Gentile religion, and the
hero of that shift is the apostle Paul.
Although the second half of the book is essentially a biography of
Paul, the first half gives some details concerning the other important
disciples, so that the book is fairly named "The Acts of the Apostles"
(rather than "The Book of Paul").
The author of Acts is generally considered to be the same as that
of the third gospel. Acts begins, for instance, with a dedication similar
to that which introduces the third gospel (see page 914) , and it refers
to an earlier book:
996
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Journeys of the Apostles
acts 997
Acts 1:1. The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all
that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Acts 1:2. Until the day in which he was taken up . . .
This "former treatise" is taken to be the third gospel, and it is
universally assumed that Luke (see page 914) wrote that gospel and
is also the author of Acts. To be sure, a later hand might have added
the dedication to Theophilus in order to make it seem as though the
same author had written both the third gospel and Acts, but a careful
examination of the style and vocabulary of the two books seems to
back up the theory of common authorship.
Indeed, one wonders if Luke and Acts might not originally have
formed a single treatise which was divided only when it was decided to
gather the various canonical gospels into a group.
The events dealt with in Acts end just prior to the Neronian
persecution of Christians in a.d. 64, and some have suggested that the
book was written at about that time. Others have favored dates as late
as a.d. 100. However, it seems very likely that Acts was written about
the same time as Luke and aj>. 80 seems a nice even date for both.
No one knows where Acts was written. The last events recorded
take place in Rome, so it might have been written there. If it were
written some fifteen years after those events it might well have been
composed elsewhere. Some suggest Asia Minor and, in particular, the
city of Ephesus. Christian missionary work was especially successful in
Ephesus in the first century. Tradition places the composition of other
New Testament books there, notably the fourth gospel (sec page 959) .
Matthias
As Acts begins, the resurrected Jesus is still with his small band of
disciples and is giving them his final instructions over a fairly extended
period of time:
Acts 1:3. To whom [the disciples] also he [Jesus] shewed himself
alive . . . , being seen of them forty days . . .
After this, Jesus was taken up to heaven (the ascension):
Acts 1:9. . . . while they beheld, he [Jesus] was taken up; and a
cloud received him out of their sight.
998
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
It was now up to the disciples to continue their work on their own,
and their first act was to reconstitute the inner circle of twelve, which
had been broken by the defection of Judas Iscariot. The remaining
apostles are listed— the fourth list in the New Testament. The other
three are in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, respectively; John does not give
a list.
Acts 1:13. . . . Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip,
and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus,
and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
Naturally, Judas Iscariot is omitted, but if we consider these eleven,
we find it to include precisely those names listed in Luke, but not
precisely those in Matthew and Mark. Only Luke of the three synoptic
gospels contains Judas the brother of James as one of the twelve
apostles; only Luke identifies Simon as Simon Zelotes. This is an
additional piece of evidence in favor of the theory that Luke wrote
Acts as well as the third gospel.
Peter arranged to have a new individual selected to take the place
of Judas Iscariot in order to bring the number of the inner circle back
to the mystical twelve that matched the twelve tribes of Israel. Two
were nominated, Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias. To choose between
the two, lots were used:
Acts 1:26. . . . and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was
numbered with the eleven apostles.
Neither Joseph Barsabbas nor Matthias are mentioned anywhere else
in the New Testament.
But the twelve apostles were by no means the only ones with whom
Christianity made its start. Others, in addition, were gathered together
in these very early days:
Acts 1:15. . . . Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples . . .
(the number of names together were about an hundred and
twenty,) . . .
Among them, Acts lists:
Acts 1:14. . . . Mary the mother of Jesus, and . . . his brethren.
This is the last act recorded of Mary in the New Testament. Luke, in
common with the other synoptic gospels, had recorded her and Jesus'
ACTS
999
brothers as having vainly tried to see Jesus (see page 850) and she is
never mentioned again. (Her appearance at the crucifixion is to be
found only in John.) However, if the evidence of Acts is accepted, she
joined the Christian fellowship after her son's death, whatever her
doubts might have been in his lifetime,
Pentecost
After the ascension, the second of the three great harvest festivals of
Judaism was approaching. This was, in Hebrew, Hag ha-Shabuoth
("feast of weeks") or simply Shabuoth. The significance of the name
arises from the manner of determining the time of its observation. That
determination was based upon Passover, the first of the harvest festivals:
Leviticus 23:15. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow
after the sabbath [of the Passover] . . . ; seven sabbaths shall be
complete:
Leviticus 23:16. Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath
shall ye number fifty days . . .
In other words, Shabuoth comes seven weeks and a day after the
Passover Sabbath and hence it is the "feast of weeks." The Greek name
refers to the number of days that had elapsed; it is "Pentecost" from a
Greek word meaning "fiftieth" since it comes on the fiftieth day after
Passover. The festival is mentioned by both names in 2 Maccabees:
2 Maccabees 12:31. ... so they [certain Jews] came to Jerusalem,
the feast of the weeks approaching.
2 Maccabees 12:32. And after the feast, called Pentecost, they went
forth . . .
Since the account in Acts makes the ascension take place forty days
after the resurrection, which in turn took place the day after the
Passover Sabbath, Pentecost must have come ten days after the ascen-
sion.
The twelve apostles, still completely Jewish in background and
religion, made ready to celebrate the festival:
Acts 2:1. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they
[the apostles] were all with one accord in one place.
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Because of what then took place Pentecost remains an important
day in the Christian calendar, and is celebrated on the seventh Sunday
after Easter.
Tongues
The apostles, gathered to celebrate Pentecost, were overcome by a
religious ecstasy, which they attributed to the entry into them of the
Holy Spirit— a manifestation promised them by Jesus just before the
ascension, for Acts quotes Jesus as saying:
Acts 1:5. . . .ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many
days hence.
The manifestation of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost took the form of
ecstatic utterances:
Acts 2:4. And they [the apostles] were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave
them utterance.
The utterance of incoherent sounds under the influence of religious
ecstasy is an effect common to many religions. As an example, the
Pythia, the priestess of Apollo at Delphi, gave forth incoherent
utterances under the influence of the narcotic leaves she chewed and of
the gases that issued from a volcanic vent. These were then interpreted
by priests in such a way as to yield the oracles that the Greeks so valued.
This "gift of tongues" or, in Greek, "glossolalia" was a common
feature of the ecstatic frenzies of the bands of prophets that were a
feature of Israelite religious practices under the judges and the kings.
In fact, such ecstatic and incoherent speech was what was usually meant
by the term "to prophesy" in the early books of the Bible. The best
known case, perhaps, is that of Saul, who, on meeting a band of
prophets, caught their fervor (religious ecstasy is contagious) and joined
them:
1 Samuel 10:10. . . . a company of prophets met him [Saul];
and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among
them.
ACTS 1001
Nor is the "gift of tongues" an ancient phenomenon only. In the
emotion-filled gatherings of some Christian sects today, ecstatic events
of one sort of another are common. The "Shakers," for instance, a
sect that achieved some prominence in nineteenth-century America but
is almost extinct today, were so called because they frequently went
into convulsions in the course of their prayers and shook as they cried
out incoherently. Sects in which exhibitions of the "gift of tongues" is
frequent are often referred to as the "Pentecostal Churches" because
of the fact that this incident during the apostles' celebration of Pente-
cost offered them their Biblical justification.
Parthians and Medes
The account in Acts brings the miraculous into this account of the
"tongues" spoken by the apostles, by declaring that their utterances
were understood by every one who heard them as being spoken in the
listeners' native laguage. The audience is described:
Acts 2:5. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men,
out of every nation under heaven.
Acts 2:9. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in
Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Acts 2:10. Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of
Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome . . .
Acts 2:11. Cretes and Arabians . . .
Tin's list of nations represents, for the most part, a systematic sweep
from east to west. First are the provinces of the Parthian Empire (then
at the peak of its power), the borders of which lay not far to the east of
Judea. The Parthians, who were the ruling group within the empire,
had, as their native province, the northeastern section of what is now
modem Iran, a province just southeast of the Caspian Sea.
Immediately to the west of Parthia proper, was Media, and south of
Media was Susiana, the ancient Elam (see page I-455). To the west of
Media and Elam was Mesopotamia, the ancient Babylonia. These
various provinces made up the main portions of the Parthian Empire,
and that brought the listing to Judea itself.
The list moves westward into Asia Minor, where five different regions
1002
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
are named: Cappadocia and Pontus are to be found in the eastern
portion of that peninsula, while Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia are in
the western portion.
Asia is a term which, in modem use, is applied to the entire vast
continent of which Asia Minor is part. In Roman times, however, the
"province of Asia" referred to the western third of the peninsula only,
the area that had once been the kingdom of Pergamum (see page 736).
Throughout the Book of Acts, the word "Asia" is to be understood in
this sense. As for Phrygia, it had once been an independent kingdom
centuries before, but now it was merely a name given to portions of the
Asia Minor interior.
At the time of the apostles' Pentecost, all the regions of Asia Minor
but Pontus were parts of the Roman Empire. Pontus remained in
nominal independence under a puppet king for another generation.
In aj). 63, however, Nero made Pontus into a Roman province outright.
With the regions of Asia Minor northwest of Judea mentioned, the
list moves to the southwest, to Egypt and Cyrene, and then to the
far west— Rome. Crete and Arabia seem to be added as an afterthought.
While the list is lengthened as though to make extremely impressive
the manner in which the apostles spoke (or, at least, were understood)
in the language of "every nation under heaven," it might be argued
that the list is not as impressive as it seems.
In Roman times, the Greek language had spread widely throughout
the east and local native languages had been submerged into a kind of
peasant patois. Jews living in those areas learned Greek. As an example,
the Jews of Alexandria spoke Greek, not Egyptian.
It followed then that the Jews from Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia,
Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Cyrene, Crete (and from Rome, too), all
spoke Greek. Those from the Parthian provinces probably all spoke
Aramaic, which was the language of trade and commerce in the regions
to the east of the Greek-speaking areas, and which was the native
language of Judea itself. In short, if the apostles knew at least some
Greek in addition to their native Aramaic (and in those days it is very
likely they did), and if, in their ecstasy, they uttered phrases in both
languages, then all those who listened to them from the various nations
listed, would have understood something. And in this way the account
could be accepted without the necessity of a miracle.
Nevertheless, of course, believing Christians accept the incident as
miraculous. So did the onlookers, if we accept the account in Acts,
ACTS 100?
for many were converted to the belief in Jesus as Messiah following a
speech by Peter:
Acts 2:41. Then they that gladly received his [Peter's] word were
baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three
thousand souls.
Ananias
The early Christian community practiced a communism of property:
Acts 4:32. . . . they had all things common.
Acts 4:34. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as
many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
prices of the things that were sold,
Acts 4:35. And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribu-
tion was made unto every man according as he had need.
This idyllic picture of union and selflessness was not, however, with-
out its flaws. Apparently, there were cases where some could not resist
holding back at least a little from the common fund, though claiming,
falsely, to have delivered the whole.
Acts 5:1. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his
wife, sold a possession,
Acts 5:2. And kept back part of the price, his wife also being
privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Peter saw through the deception and rebuked first Ananias and
then Sapphira, accusing each of lying. Each dropped dead upon being
rebuked, and Ananias lives on in colloquial speech as a name applied to
any liar.
Ananias is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Hananiah. It is an
interesting coincidence that, of the fourteen individuals of that name
mentioned in the Old Testament, the most considerable is a lying
prophet. In the time of Jeremiah, the prophet Hananiah predicted the
speedy liberation of the Jews from Babylonian imprisonment. Jeremiah
quoted God as threatening Hananiah with death for lying:
1004
ASIMOV S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Jeremiah 28:17. So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in
the seventh month.
Gamaliel
That the Christians survived and expanded their influence under
Peter was due, at least in part, to a division among the Jewish sects.
The aristocratic Sadducees, pro-Roman and opposed to anything that
might give rise to political or social unrest, viewed the activities of the
apostles with alarm. The religious enthusiasms they aroused, and the
atmosphere of revivalist intensity, seemed most dangerous to them.
Acts 5:17. Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with
him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with in-
dignation . . .
More than one attempt was made to imprison the apostles, especially
their leader, Peter, and even condemn them to death.
Standing against the Sadducees, however, were the Pharisees. In
almost all respects, the religious views of the early Christians were
those of the Pharisees. The great dividing line at this time consisted
chiefly of the fact that the Christians accepted Jesus as the Messiah and
the Pharisees did not. It is quite likely that many of the Pharisees of the
time felt that this belief in Jesus was an aberration that would soon die
out and that the greater danger within Judaism was the Sadducee sect
with whom the Pharisees had been feuding bitterly for about a century
and a half.
To defend the apostles against the Sadducee-controlled council, there
arose a leader among the Pharisees:
Acts 5:34. Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee,
named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all
the people . . .
Gamaliel was a grandson of Hillel (sec page 807) and carried on the
gentle teachings of his renowned grandfather. Gamaliel pointed out that
there had been other leaden of popular uprisings in recent decades
whose followers had been filled with Messianic hopes and that nothing
had come of any of them:
ACTS
1005
Acts 5:36. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself
to be somebody; . . . and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered,
and brought to nought.
Acts 5:37. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the
taxing . . . : he also perished . . .
Gamaliel pointed out that the Christians would die out too, if their
beliefs in Jesus were false, without the council having to take any
action, any more than they did in the earlier cases. And if the
Christian beliefs were indeed divinely inspired, then any action against
them by the council would not only be futile, but also dangerous.
The council was persuaded and the apostles were allowed to continue
their work. However, there was no permanent alliance between Chris-
tians and Pharisees. The issue of the Messiah-hood of Jesus was insuper-
able.
Gamaliel led the Pharisees till his death in aj>. 52. A number of his
descendants continued to head the shattered Jewish community in
Judea after Rome had wiped out all Jewish political power. The last of
the line was Gamaliel VI, who died about aj>. 425.
Stephen
The growth of the Christian fellowship was bound to bring problems,
and quite early two parties were formed.
One party consisted of Jews of Judea and Galilee, whose language
was Aramaic and who carried on their religious observances in the
traditional Hebrew. The other party consisted of Jews from outside
Judea and Galilee and whose language was Greek, both in their daily
lives and their devotions. These two parties can be distinguished on
the basis of the language in which they worshipped and are referred to
in Acts as Hebrews and Grecians, respectively.
It is understandable that the two groups should misunderstand each
other. The Hebrew party could not help but feel that the age-old holy
language of Hebrew was the proper one in which to pray and that the
holy land of Israel was the proper surrounding in which to pray. To
them, the Grecians would naturally seem like foreigners, half corrupted
by the Gentiles, speaking a heathen language and tolerant toward
1006
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
pagan ways. The Grecian party, on the other hand, knowing more of the
great outside world, would look upon the Hebrews as backward
provincials whose narrow outlook was unfitting for the tasks ahead.
Acts 6:1. And in those days, when >the number of the disciples
was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the
Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily minis-
tration.
In other words, the Grecians claimed they were not receiving their
fair share of the community income. Since the twelve apostles were all
of the Hebrew group there might have been grounds for this complaint.
Had the apostles chosen to override these objections and to main-
tain a strictly Hebrew stand, the Grecians might have fallen away, and
Christianity might have withered.
The apostles did not, however, do this. In a decision which, through
hindsight, can be seen to have been statesman-like, they offered the
Grecians special representation within the Christian fellowship by
allowing them seven leaden who would see to their fair treatment:
Acts 6:5. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they
chose Stephen . . . and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and
Timon, and Parmenas, and 'Nicolas . . .
The leader of the Grecian seven was Stephen and he immediately
began to be active in missionary labors among his Grecian fellows.
Here he met with much opposition:
Acts 6:9. Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which
is called the synagogue of tlie Libertines, and Cyrenians, and
Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with
Stephen.
While the Temple was the one place of worship in Jerusalem,
there were a number of synagogues in which Jews could gather to
discuss the Law, dispute various points, and perhaps carry on their
social affairs. It may not have been too different in essence from
modern clubs.
Naturally, one would expect Jews of common background to group
themselves into a particular synagogue. The Grecians would be happier
with others who spoke Greek. Indeed, it might be that those from
ACTS
1007
Cilicia or Asia, speaking Greek with an Asia Minor accent, would
frequent one, while those from Cyrene and Alexandria, speaking with
an African accent, would frequent the other. (Cilicia, not men-
tioned earlier in the Bible, is a region occupying the eastern half of
the southern coast of Asia Minor.)
It is not clear whether the "synagogue of the Libertines" represents
still a third group, or whether it is the one to which (as the translation
in the Jerusalem Bible would have it appear) the Jews of Cyrene
and Alexandria belonged.
The word "Libertines," in modem English, refers to those who
carry liberty to excess and allow no inhibitions to restrain their un-
bridled desires. We tend to think of libertines as wicked and lustful,
and might consider it quite natural, therefore, for such people to
oppose Stephen.
However, "Libertine" has an older meaning; it is applied to a
person who has been enslaved but who has been freed, one who is
more commonly called in modem terms a "freedman." And, indeed,
the Revised Standard Version refers to the "synagog of the Freedmen"
rather than to that of the Libertines.
It is thought that the synagogue may have consisted of descendants
of Jews who had been taken prisoner by Pompey when he besieged
and occupied Jerusalem a century before, and who had later been
liberated. They or their descendants may have made their homes in
Cyrene and Alexandria, the largest and most flourishing Jewish centers
in all the Greek world, and this may have given the name to the
synagogue of the Jews of Africa.
Stephen was brought before the council on the charge of blasphemy
and, in his defense, he recited the early history of the Jews through
the time of Moses, emphasizing the manner in which people in every
age had rejected the prophets— even Moses himself— and ending in a
furious outcry:
Acts 7:51. Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,
ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.
Acts 7:52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers perse-
cuted? . . .
Such a defense could scarcely win over his audience and, to top
that off, Stephen then committed that which seemed clear blasphemy
1008
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
in the view of his audience. He virtually repeated Jesus' statement
under similar conditions. Jesus had said:
Matthew 26:64. . . . Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
on the right hand of power . . .
referring to Daniel's statement which had been accepted as Messianic
(see page I-610).
And Stephen said:
Acts 7:56. . . . Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son
of man standing on the right hand of God.
Stephen was promptly condemned to death by stoning and the
sentence was carried through.
This event may have taken place in a.d. 31, two years after the
crucifixion, and Stephen ranks as the first Christian martyr. The first
,man recorded as dying for the new faith, which held Jesus to be
the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament prophets, was of the
Grecian party. The pendulum was beginning its swing.
Philip
Stephen's death was followed by vigorous action against the Chris-
tians in Jerusalem. Many were forced to leave, for safety's sake. In-
cluded among these was Philip, the second of the seven leaders of
the Grecian party. (He is the only one besides Stephen of whom the
Bible has anything more to say than an inclusion in the list of the
seven.)
The Philip mentioned here is the second of the two prominent
Philips of the New Testament. The first is Philip the apostle, a
Galilean and therefore of the Hebrew party. He is mentioned in all
four lists of the apostles, including the one in the first chapter of Acts.
Except for these listings, he does not appear in the synoptic gospels
or in Acts, but is involved in several incidences in the gospel according
to St. John.
The second Philip, the one who figures in Acts, is called Philip the
evangelist because he preached the gospel outside Judea and won
converts. Thus, in the immediate aftermath of Stephen's stoning:
ACTS 1009
Med I TER R A NEA N
Sea.
: ~ *= / T~- K- • ' , —
PHOENICIA/ /ABIIENE./*
5 > K I A / /-' .OF LYSAHMSJV ..-
ROMAN PSoSnCE) ,' : / ^ ' L^ffl?' '
. - ^'■•TCy'-t: ....
y^-^ilV/y y PANIA-3 -
r" V") I'"* 1>v ~>
\
Ptoltmms I
■lift ^ / , ' 1 f • . ' "" "~
J.^ii(u. u £ LA T HA --
' ta^Ui,,^./ ft-'- • , /
/ V W^^OF./^i^Tl^fv j AURANITIS /
I : S?*-s:~.^ N " n ■■• )i.«*m.:\>(>;itcli« V-^.
, [n^nmnw — , ^ A, '■'":) it *
^ ^ SAMAR I A; ^ 7 "» ,• ' PECAPOL1S
.U/NDERTOMANPHOCURATOR) jj ^ ''
/( >is?££> v. HtaKli'sS PERAEA.'|. : • /
Com
/
ItBHUTARy /-"'"""!' / ' \ ^EnmiJUS. r- ,- kr ^
iosaiome; £l«n V-,Ni'a)hil/'5"- — ■*' ' V
/ Aut*i / i£"'**'sl: J '™ 1 ?. Io «i •WilMiy J
. , / • / -C. . ^•BflkWroil /
ASMfert/>- -y' _ JUDAEA, s . - •■*/
V (UNDER ROMAN PROCOPATORl, SF|
/ bam / \ •-. (,,,,, , > .J 1
tj, /• liGtrai-.. ■'.(
•Pi toil
./
T
A/
T
ARAB I A
Palestine: The Time of Christ
1010
ASIMOV's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Acts 8:5. . . . Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and
preached Christ unto them.
If this verse refers to the city of Samaria that had been the
capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel eight centuries before,
that city no longer existed as such. It had been destroyed by the
Assyrians and had dragged on thereafter as a small and squalid village
until it was finally rebuilt by Herod the Great. He gave it the name
of "Sebaste," a Greek word meaning "revered" and taken as the
equivalent of the Latin "Augusta," so that that city was named in
honor of the emperor, Augustus.
Actually, though, it is not likely that Philip went to Sebaste. The
Revised Standard Version translates the verse "Philip went down to
a city of Samaria"; some unnamed Samaritan city, in other words.
Apparently, the followers of Jesus had by now been made to feel
such heretics by the Jewish authorities, that they found a certain
kinship with those other heretics, the Samaritans. The situation is no
longer what it was in Jesus' lifetime (as depicted in the gospels) when
any approach to the Samaritans on the part of Jesus was a matter for
surprise and even disapproval on the part of his disciples.
Now, when Philip began to gamer conversions, Peter and John
went to Samaria, without apparent hesitation, to complete the con-
versions and make them official:
Acts 8:17. Then laid they [Peter and John] their hands on them
[the Samaritan converts], and they received the Holy Ghost.
In this way, the Samaritans were accepted as Christians in the
fullest sense, on a plane of complete equality with Christians of
orthodox Jewish origin. This was an important step in the growth of
Christianity out of its Jewish swaddling clothes.
Simon Magus
At the time of Philip's arrival, the Samaritans were already impressed
with another leader:
Acts 8:9. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which
beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people
of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one.
ACTS 1011
Because of this verse, this man is usually identified as Simon the
Sorcerer, or Simon Magus (to distinguish him from Simon Peter).
We might suppose that he was some healer, preaching much as the
apostles did. Such activities are always called divinely inspired by
friends, and sorcery by foes. (The Pharisees accused Jesus of sorcery
and if their views had won out, he might conceivably have gone down
in history as Jesus Magus.)
Simon Magus was himself converted to Christianity by Philip and
underwent baptism. When Peter and John arrived as the accepted
authorities, by virtue of their rank as apostles, to make such con-
version official, Simon attempted to gain equal rights and privileges.
Perhaps he felt that as apostolic representative in Samaria, with full
powers, he could continue his older activities under a new name and
retain whatever worldly power and prestige that had given him. He
offered, therefore, to buy the right:
Acts 8:18. .. . he [Simon] offered them [Peter and John]
money,
Acts 8:19. Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever
I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
It was not after all an uncommon practice to buy religious office.
The high priesthood in Jerusalem was bought and sold in Seleucid
times (see page 98) and in the times of the Romans; and the
practice was undoubtedly common in all religions.
But Simon is roundly rebuked on this occasion by Peter. Neverthe-
less, the practice of buying religious office has not been unknown in the
history of Christianity, and a special name has been given this practice
—"simony," from Simon Magus, because of this passage.
The Bible says nothing more about Simon Magus, but he figures
largely in the tales transmitted by the early Christian writers. He
is supposed to have fallen out of the mainstream of Christianity, to
have founded Christian Gnosticism (see page 963) , to have con-
tinued to use magic and to have opposed Peter and Paul, in later
years, by his sorcerers' tricks, with consequences fatal to himself.
The Simonians, a heretical sect that endured for some two centuries,
are traced back to Simon Magus. We have only the writings of the
early Christians as testimonials to Simonian beliefs and, as can easily
be imagined, those testimonials are unfavorable indeed.
1012
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Candace
Feeling himself to have completed his task in Samaria, Philip
traveled southward to Gaza, which had once been one of the five chief
cities of the Philistines in the time of David. There he met a stranger
from a far land:
Acts 8:27. . . . a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority
under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all
her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship . . .
Ethiopia was the name given by the Greeks to the land along
the Nile immediately south of Egypt, beyond the river's first cataract.
That name is applied nowadays to Abyssinia, which is actually some
five hundred miles southeast of the ancient Ethiopia. The region
known as Ethiopia to the ancients makes up the northernmost portion
of the modem nation of Sudan and might best be termed Nubia.
Philip met, in other words, a Nubian, from the land south of Egypt.
Nubia's earliest history is that of an appendage of Egypt. The
Egyptians traded with Nubia and under the strong Egyptian pharaohs,
Nubia was conquered and occupied for centuries at a time. Nubia,
under pharaonic domination, accepted Egyptian culture and religion
but never quite gave up its memory of political independence.
After the disastrous invasions of the Peoples of the Sea (see page
1-131), which occurred at the time of the Exodus, Egypt's power shrank
permanently, and Nubia broke free. It formed an independent king-
dom (still Egyptian in culture and religion) with its capital at Napata,
a city on the Nile River about four hundred miles upstream from
Egypt's southern boundary.
About 750 b.c. (toward the end of Uzziah's reign in Judah),
Nubia came under the rule of a chieftain named Kashta. Under him,
Nubia reached the peak of its power and this came just as Egypt
was sinking toward a low point. Kashta conquered southern Egypt
and established himself as a new pharaoh of what historians call the
Twenty-fifth Dynasty. (This is sometimes known as the Ethiopian
Dynasty, though Nubian Dynasty would be better.) Kashta's suc-
cessor, Piankhi, conquered the rest of Egypt in 736 b.c.
This Nubian Dynasty played a significant role in Judean history.
ACTS
ion
When Sennacherib was laying siege to Jerusalem in 701 B.C., Egypt
(in its own self-inteiest) raised an army against the Assyrian mon-
arch. This army was under the leadership of Taharqa, a prince of the
Nubian Dynasty, who, eleven years later, was to ascend the throne of
Egypt. He is referred to in 2 Kings as Tirhaka (see page I-384) . His
campaign against Sennacherib could not be considered as better than
a draw, but that was enough to induce the Assyrian (fighting at the
end of a long line of communications) to withdraw and attend to
pressing needs closer to home. The Nubian Dynasty, therefore, helped
in a very material way to preserve Jerusalem.
Sennacherib's successor, Esarhaddon, did better. He reduced Judah
to the role of a quiet tributary under Manasseh and then, by 661
B.C., drove the Nubian Dynasty out of Egypt. For twenty years
Assyrian garrisons ruled Egypt. Egypt then regained its independence,
but under native monarchs. The Nubians never returned.
To make sure that they would not, the native pharaohs of the
Twenty-sixth Dynasty established the fort at Elephantine, manned by
Jewish mercenaries (see page I-571). These guarded the Nile against
incursions by Nubians from the south. Indeed, the Egyptians took the
offensive and, about 590 B.C., sacked Napata itself.
From that point on, Nubia remained in isolation (except for a
possible Persian raid in 522 b.c.) and slowly declined. Although
Nubia continued to cling to the Egyptian religion, Judaism must have
penetrated somewhat. Jews from Elephantine may have settled in
Nubia or gained converts there. Some of these, whether Jews by
birth or conversion, may have undertaken the long trip to Jerusalem
to worship at the Temple, as the one true place of worship, just as
Moslems today undertake the pilgrimage to Mecca as often as they
can.
The eunuch met by Philip was, therefore, a Jew, though whether
by birth and descent, or by conversion, the Bible does not say.
In Roman times, Nubia maintained its independence and was
ruled by several energetic queens. The Nubian word for queen was
rendered by the Greeks as Kandake and by the Romans and ourselves
as Candace. This name was applied to all the queens of Nubia at
this time.
The most important of these was one who, at the time that
Augustus took over Egypt and made it a Roman province, dared in-
1014
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
vade Egypt. Perhaps she thought that the confusion of the Roman
takeover would render Egypt easy pickings.
If so, she was wrong. A Roman army under Gaius Pstronius
inarched southward and sacked Napata in 22 b.c. It would have been
Roman policy in the days before Augustus to annex Nubia, but
Augustus favored a policy of peace whenever possible. Nubia was
evacuated and allowed to retain its independence. It did not attempt
any futher adventures northward, however.
A successor of this Candace who had opposed the Romans (a
successor also known as Candace) was the "queen of the Ethiopians"
of Acts 8:27. She employed a Jewish eunuch as treasurer, and it was
this Jewish treasurer of Nubia that Philip met.
The Nubian Jew was reading a passage from Isaiah when Philip
met him. Philip interpreted the passage for him in a Messianic sense,
applying it to Jesus. The Nubian forthwith asked to be converted and,
presumably, carried the Christian message with him to his homeland.
It is interesting that in this case, Peter and John were not there to
make the conversion official. The situation was beginning to slip out
of the control of apostolic leadership and of the Hebrew party whose
power centered in Jerusalem. It was to continue to do so.
Saul of Tarsus
But the greatest Grecian of all was at hand, one who far surpassed
Stephen and Philip in his impact upon history. He was a man
named Saul, and he began his career as a firm opponent of the fol-
lowers of Jesus.
Saul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin and had his share
of the Jewish stock of nationalist pride, as can be seen from his self-
description in his Epistle to the Philippians:
Philippians 3:4. Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of
Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews . . .
It is not surprising that, as a child of a staunch Benjamite family,
he was given the name of the greatest Benjamite in history, King Saul.
At least King Saul had been the greatest Benjamite till the coming of
this new Saul.
ACTS
1015
Journeys of the Apostles
1016
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Yet although Saul describes himself as a "Hebrew of the Hebrews"
(that is, not only a Jew but a Jew by birth— the son of Jews) he was
not of the Hebrew group of the early Christians for he was not a
native of Judea or Galilee. He was bom instead in Asia Minor and
was, therefore, of the Grecian group:
Acts 21:39. • • • P au l [Saul] said, I am a man which am a Jew of
Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city . . .
Tarsus was indeed the largest city in Cilicia. Its earliest history
was probably as a Hittite town. Phoenician traders must have settled
there in the great days of Hiram of Tyre (when David and Solomon
ruled over Israel) and Greek traders must have arrived there, too.
In later centuries, when Greek culture became fashionable, Tarsus
always claimed to be a Greek city, but the Phoenician tinge remained
strong down into Roman times.
About 850 b.c. Tarsus was captured by the expanding Assyrian
Empire, and after Assyria's fall, it continued under the rule of first
the Persian kings and then the Seleucids. It always retained con-
siderable self-government, however, and in 171 B.C. it was granted
virtual independence by Antiochus IV himself.
The next two centuries saw it at its height, prosperous, cultured,
proud of its Greekness, and containing a group of philosophers and
an important university as well. The Emperor Augustus, when he was
but a teenager, studying on an island in the Aegean Sea, had as his
teacher, Athenodorus, a philosopher of Tarsus. It was indeed "no mean
city."
After the assassination of Julius Caesar, that general's former lieu-
tenant, Mark Antony, was awarded the east as his sphere of influence
and he took up residence in Tarsus.
It was while at Tarsus that Mark Antony called Cleopatra to a
conference in order to extract money from wealthy Egypt. Cleopatra
came to Tarsus in a ship fitted out to an extreme of luxury and herself
deliberately decked out in such a fashion as to entrance the pleasure-
loving Roman. She succeeded, and the second most notable event in
the history of the city of Tarsus was this initial meeting of Mark
Antony and Cleopatra in its harbor.
More important still was a happening that went completely un-
noticed in its time. Since Tarsus was an important trading center, it
ACTS 1017
gathered a colony of Jews which grew and prospered. In a particular
year which is completely unknown but which we might venture to
guess to have been aj>. 10, Saul of Tarsus was bom there, and that
was indeed the most notable event in the city's history.
Saul's family was apparently of considerable account. They were,
for one thing, Roman citizens, and they may have been rich enough
to purchase the citizenship. The citizenship was often awarded for
some service rendered Rome, but it might also be sold— as has been the
case, for instance, with knighthoods in English history. The Bible
does not say which was true in the case of Saul's family, but whatever
the situation, Saul himself inherited the status and was a citizen by
birth.
Roman citizenship was worth having in New Testament times, for
it carried not only prestige and status, but certain important privileges
as well.
Thus, at one time, when Saul was on the point of being whipped,
he took advantage of a Roman citizen's immunity to corporal punish-
ment without trial. He said to the Roman soldier with the whip:
Acts 22:25. ... Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a
Roman, and uncondemned?
The centurion at once reported this to his captain, who promptly
questioned the prisoner:
Acts 22:27. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him
[Saul], Tell me, art thou a Roman? He [Saul] said, Yea,
The chief captain proudly announced that he too was a Roman,
having paid through the nose for it, and Saul quietly topped him
by announcing himself as a citizen by birth:
Acts 22:28. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum
obtained I this freedom. And Paul [Saul] said, But I was free born.
Saul was promptly spared the whipping, saved by his citizenship.
Very little is known of Saul's relatives. He himself seems never to
have married and so had no children. He did, however, have at least
a sister and a nephew, for they are referred to:
Acts 23:16. . . . when Paul's [Saul's] sister's son heard of their
lying in wait, he . . . told Paul [Saul],
1018
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The prosperity of Saul's family might well be further indicated by
the fact that they could afford to send their son to Judea for a
thorough religious training in Jerusalem itself.
As a result of this, Paul gained a good knowledge of Aramaic
(unlike many of the Grecian faction); good enough so that he
could not only understand Aramaic commentaries on the Scripture but
could actually converse and preach in the language. This bilingual
ability gained him considerably more influence with the native popu-
lation of Judea than he might otherwise have had:
Acts 21:40. . . . Paul [Saul] . . . beckoned with the hand unto
the people. And where there was made a great silence, he spake
unto them in the Hebrew tongue [Aramaic] . . •
Acts 22:2. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew
tongue to them, they kept the more silence . . .
In Jerusalem, Saul attached himself to none other than Gamaliel,
the leading Pharisee of the time and the one who had advocated
toleration for the Christians (see p;ige l(K)4). Thus, Saul says:
Acts 22:3. I am ... a ]ew, born in Tarsus . . . yet brought up
in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught accord-
ing to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers . . .
And, of course, Saul became a Pharisee in consequence, as he
himself admits, for in the same verse in which he describes himself
as an Hebrew of the Hebrews, he adds that he is:
Philippians 3:4. . . . as touching the law, a Pharisee.
In the course of his career, Saul did not scruple to gain the support
of the Pharisees by declaring himself to be one of them in philosophy,
as opposed to the Sadducee factions. Standing before the council,
he shrewdly gained the support of the Pharisee group by saying:
Acts 23:6. . . . Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a
Pharisee . . .
Perhaps his family's wealth was not quite sufficient to maintain
Saul in idleness throughout his years as a student. He may well have
had to, at least in part, "work his way through college" so to speak.
If he did so, it was through labor at a craft. He was a working-man
ACTS 1019
as well as a scholar. This craft is referred to when, in his travels,
Saul is housed by certain members of the same craft:
Acts 18:3. . . . because he was of the same craft, he abode with
them, and wrought; for by their occupation they were tent-makers.
This line of work may perhaps more properly be termed that
of "weaver," for it is unlikely to have been so specialized as to be
limited to tents alone, particularly since he practiced his calling in
Greek towns, where there could scarcely have been much call for tents
as such. The craft may even have been that of Paul's family generally,
for Tarsus was famous for the weaving of cloth made from goat's hair,
a cloth known as "cilicium" after the region in which Tarsus was
located.
Saul, in his youth, was a thoroughgoing Pharisee and completely
opposed to the views of those who believed Jesus to be the Messiah.
Presumably, Saul attended the synagogue which was attended by
"them of Cilicia and of Asia" (sec page 1007), for he was himself of
Cilicia by birth. No doubt, he disputed with Stephen, and may even
have been foremost among those who denounced him. Certainly he
was a prominent member of the executing crowd.
The witnesses against Stephen had the duty of casting the first stones,
according to the Mosaic Law:
Deuteronomy 17:7. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon
him [the condemned] to put him to death . . .
The witnesses, in taking care of this duty, discarded their outermost
garments in order that their arms might be free to throw.
Acts 7:58. . . . and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a
young maris feet, whose name was Saul . . .
Acts 8:1. And Saul was consenting unto his [Stephen's] death . . .
This is the first mention of Saul in Acts and quite clearly he must
have cast his share of the stones after the witnesses had cast the first.
What's more, Saul led those forces which then instituted a per-
secution of the Christians:
Acts 8:3. As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering
into every house and haling men and women committed them to
prison.
1020
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In his later life, he refers on a number of occasions to this
early period when he persecuted the sect of which he was afterward to
be the greatest supporter. He says, for instance, in the Epistle to the
Calatians:
Galatians 1:13. For ye had heard . . . how that beyond measure I
persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.
Damascus
Saul was not content to carry on his zealous hounding of the Chris-
tians in Jerusalem, or even in Judea. Apparently the new sect was mak-
ing its appearance among Jewish congregations in cities outside Judea.
Saul wanted authority to travel to such cities and wipe out Christianity
there:
Acts 9:1. And Saul . . . went unto the high priest,
Acts 9:2. And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues,
that if he found any of this way [Christians] . . . he might bring
them bound unto Jerusalem.
In this way, Damascus re-enters the stream of Biblical history. In the
time of the kingdoms it had been the capital of a nation that had
been an important enemy of Israel, but after its destruction by As-
syria in 732 b.c, its importance vanished. It came under the control,
successively, of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Persians. After the time
of Alexander the Great, it was held sometimes by the Ptolemies, some-
times by the Seleucids.
The Romans took it in 64 b.c, but in aj>. 31 they allowed it con-
siderable autonomy under the control of the Arabian kinglet, Aretas
—the same one who fought with Herod Antipas over the latter" s divorce
and remarriage (see page 814) and who now, in Saul's time, was ap-
proaching the end of a long, half century reign.
Near Damascus, however, Saul underwent an unusual experience:
Acts 9:3. . . . as he [Saul] . . . came near Damascus . . . there
shined round about him a light from heaven:
Acts 9:4. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto
him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
ACTS 1021
Acts 9:5. And he [Saul] said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord
said, I am ]esus whom thou persecuted . . .
Saul was blinded by the vision and had to be led into Damascus,
where he remained blind for three days. His sight was then restored at
the touch of a Christian disciple in Damascus.
As a result, Saul was converted to Christianity, becoming as fanatical
an upholder of the belief as, earlier, he had been fanatical in opposing
it. (This is by no means uncommon in conversions.) The year in which
this conversion took place is not known; estimates range from a.d. 32
(the year after Stephen's death) to a.d. 36.
Saul at once began to preach Christian doctrine in Damascus, to
the surprise of all who knew of his reputation as an anti-Christian
fanatic. His successes were apparently great; great enough to cause those
Jews who remained unconverted to believe Saul deserved death for
blasphemy.
Acts 9:23. And after that many days were fulfilled, the ]ews took
counsel to kill him . . .
Acts does not say how long Saul remained in Damascus beyond the
vague "many days." In the Epistle to the Galatians, however, Saul says
of this period:
Galatians 1:17. . . . I went into Arabia, and returned again unto
Damascus.
Galatians 1:18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem . . .
So we may take it that for three years, Saul pondered the new
doctrine (spending some time in quiet introspection in the semidesert
region east of Damascus— referred to here as "Arabia"). Gradually he
developed his own approach.
Perhaps. he might have remained longer in Damascus and its environs,
were it not that danger was growing acute. Saul eventually had to go
into hiding in ordeT that the indignant Jews of Damascus might not
arrest him and place him on trial. In fact, it grew necessary to get him
out of the city altogether and this was a rather difficult task.
Acts 9:24. . . . they [Saul's enemies] watched the gates day and
night to kill him.
Acts 9:25. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down
by the wall in a basket.
1022
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The matter must have been more, however, than a purely doctrinal
dispute between Jews and Christians. Damascus may have had a strong
contingent of Jews but it was largely a Gentile city and it was under
Gentile rule. The Jews could not, of their own authority, have guarded
the gates. Apparently Paul's activities also disturbed King Aretas, and
it was his soldiers who searched for Saul.
Saul himself, in describing this episode, says:
2 Corinthians 11:32. In Damascus the governor under Aretas
the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous
to apprehend me:
2 Corinthians 11:33. And through a window in a basket was I
let down by the wall and escaped his hands.
Barnabas
Saul returned to Jerusalem now and tried to join the Christian
community there. He failed at first, since the disciples were very nat-
urally suspicious of the erstwhile persecutor. Saul needed a sponsor
and found one:
Acts 9:27. But Barnabas took him [Saul] and brought him to the
apostles and declared unto them how lie [Saul] had seen the
Lord . . .
Barnabas was mentioned earlier in Acts in connection with the com-
munism of the early Christian fellowship. In contradistinction to
Ananias, who tried to gain the credit of a total contributor to the wel-
fare fund, while secretly holding back some, Barnabas gave all:
Acts 4:36. And Joses [Joseph], who by the apostles was sumamed
Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,)
a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Acts 4:37. Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid
it at the apostles' feet.
It was perhaps this act that caused him to receive the surname of
Barnabas, since in those infant days of the community, both the
money itself and the appreciation of the feeling of confidence that
lay behind the award, must have been consolation indeed.
Barnabas was another of the Grecian group, having been born on
ACTS
1023
the island of Cyprus. He may well have felt a strong feeling of kinship
to Saul, for their birthplaces were not very far apart. Cyprus is just off
the Cilician seacoast, and the northeastern tip of the island is only
about a hundred miles south of Tarsus.
James the Lord's Brother
Acts says little about what Saul did, specifically, after being intro-
duced to the apostles, but Saul himself in his Epistle to the Galatians
says:
Galatians 1:18. . . . I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
abode with him fifteen days.
Galatians 1:19. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James
the Lord's brother.
Paul, in other words, saw the two leading Christians. Peter, as the
chief of the original band of twelve apostles, might be considered the
nearest worldly representative of the memory of Jesus. It was James
"the Lord's brother," however, who seems to have been the actual
administrative head of the Jerusalem branch of the fellowship— of the
"Mother Church," so to speak.
James was not one of the original apostles. Indeed, on the testimony
of the fourth gospel, he was a doubter during Jesus' ministry:
John 7:5. For neither did his [Jesus'] brethren believe in him.
Nevertheless, he apparently came to be a believer by the time of the
crucifixion or immediately afterward, for the gathering of the early dis-
ciples before the great day of Pentecost included:
Acts 1:14. . . . the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and
. . . his [Jesus'] brethren.
James's conversion to belief may have come about through a sight
of the resurrected Jesus. At least Paul, in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians lists him among the witnesses to the resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:5. And ... he was seen of Cephas [Peter],
then of the twelve:
1 Corinthians 15:7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all
the apostles.
11)2-1
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Presumably, the James mentioned here might be James son of Zebedee
or James son of Alphaeus, each one a member of the original band of
twelve. However, it is generally accepted that when Acts refers to
James, without qualification, they mean Jesus' younger brother. (Again,
it should be pointed out that those Christians who accept the belief
that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a perpetual virgin, consider James
to be Jesus' cousin or half brother, rather than his brother.)
From Peter and James, Saul, it may be assumed, gathered many
details concerning Jesus' ministry and person.
There is always dispute as to whether Saul ever actually saw Jesus
in the latter's lifetime. It is not known when Saul arrived in Jerusalem
for his education. If he arrived three or four years before his appearance
at the stoning of Stephen, as is not at all unlikely, then he would have
been in Jerusalem in the hectic week preceding the crucifixion. If he
did, it would be almost certain that he would have been among the
crowds listening to Jesus' words (and Saul, it might reasonably be
assumed, would have been loud in his angry denunciations of Jesus).
And yet even if Saul had been in Jerusalem at that time, and had
been among the crowds around Jesus, he might always have been far
back and unable to catch a real glimpse. Certainly, if he had met
Jesus face to face in the course of the latter's ministry, Saul would
have said so in one of his epistles, and he does not.
Most commentators conclude that Saul never actually met Jesus in
the flesh, and, if so, the meeting with Peter and James must have
been particularly important to Saul. We can well imagine him asking
eagerly after the personal memories of these two close associates of the
Jesus whom Saul now accepted as the Messiah.
In Jerusalem, Saul continued to preach Christian doctrine ardently
and was soon in danger again. The anti-Christian elements must have
been particularly resentful over the loss of so valued a member and
have chafed at the Christian victory in gaining so notable a defector.
Again it was felt that Saul could gain safety only in flight:
Acts 9:30. . . . the brethren . . . brought him [Saul] down to
Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.
This may have been anywhere from a.d. 34 to 38, depending on
when it was that Saul's conversion occurred. Saul remained in Tarsus
a lengthy time but exactly how lengthy a time can only be deduced
ACTS 1025
from fragmentary evidence. The best guess seems to be from eight to
ten years.
Nothing is known concerning this period except that Saul pre-
sumably carried on his preaching in Cilicia. He himself says merely:
Galatians 1:21. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and
Cilicia;
Galatians 1:22. And was unknown by face unto the churches of
Judaea . . .
Galatians 1:23. But they had heard only, That he which per-
secuted us in times past now preacheth the faith . . .
Lydda
The general persecution of the followers of Jesus that had been set
off after the stoning of Stephen had by now eased up, and apparently
there were groups of Christians in Galilee, as well as in Samaria and
Judea:
Acts 9:31. Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and
Galilee and Samaria . . .
Peter, as the spiritual leader of the Christians, felt it safe now to
travel through the area, visiting the various groups:
Acts 9:32. . . .as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came
down also to . . . Lydda.
Lydda is the Greek form of the Hebrew, Lod, and is a town men-
tioned only a few times, and then inconsequentially, in the Old Testa-
ment. It is on the main road from Jerusalem to the seaport of Joppa,
about twenty-two miles from the former and only ten miles from the
latter.
Although Lydda was only an unimportant village in Old Testament
times, and was to become an unimportant village again after the
Jewish rebellion, it was passing through a brief period of consequence
in New Testament times. It was large and prosperous and was a re-
spected seat of learning.
Perhaps Lydda's most important claim to fame (aside from this men-
tion in Acts) is that it was the home of a legendary Christian hero
who slew a dragon and saved a young lady whom the dragon was
1026
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
about to eat, some time during the period of the Roman Empire.
(Oddly enough, this is very like the Greek tale of Perseus and Androm-
eda—see page I-414— which was supposed to have taken place at Joppa.
Could the Christian legend have been borrowed from the Greek?)
In any case, the dragon-slaying hero is the St. George who is now con-
sidered the patron saint of England.
Lydda exists today as a sizable town of twenty-one thousand in
modem Israel.
Cornelius
The most significant event in Peter's journey took place at Caesarea.
This was Judea's chief port, about thirty miles north of Joppa. There
the Roman power was chiefly concentrated, and there the procurators
generally held their seat.
Acts 10:1. There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius,
a centurion . . .
Acts 10:2. A devout man, and one that feared God . . . gave
much alms . . . and prayed to God alway.
Apparently, although Cornelius was strongly attracted to Jewish doc-
trine, he was not accepted fully into the Jewish fellowship because he
had not yet undergone circumcision, the indispensable initiating rite
to Judaism. That this is so is indicated by the fact that when Cornelius
hears that Peter is in Joppa and sends for him, Peter hesitates about
accepting the invitation. He says:
Acts 10:28. ... Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a
man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another
nation . . .
This does not include ordinary contact, of course, but does involve
the matter of dining with a Gentile. The complex dietary laws of the
Jews are not followed by the Gentiles and for a Jew to dine with a
Gentile would cause him to eat food that was ritually unclean and
this would be a grave infraction of the Mosaic Law.
Peter, we can well imagine, was tom between two courses. As a good
Jew, he was horrified at the thought of eating with a Gentile. On the
other hand, as a good Christian, it was quite apparent that a conver-
ACTS 1027
sion was in the air and a conversion that was too good to tum down
lightly. Cornelius is described in Acts as a pious man and he was a
Roman soldier. For a Roman soldier to become Christian would be
a great victory for the cause and as a centurion, an officer, he could
doubtless influence other conversions. Did Peter have a right to toss
away such an opportunity lightly— and perhaps even make an enemy
of an important soldier in so doing?
The decision was in favor of the centurion despite his status as
Gentile, and Acts explains that decision in terms of a vision seen by a
Peter in which the Jewish division of food into ritually clean and un-
clean is abolished. Now Peter could freely eat with a Gentile. And
Peter did more:
Acts 10:48. And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in
the name of the Lord . . .
This was an important and even crucial step. Until this point, all
Christians had taken the Mosaic Law as the basis of their faith. To
them Jesus had appeared as the climax and fulfillment of that Law.
In Matthew's version of the gospel, Jesus is quoted as saying:
Matthew 5:17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law . . .
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Those who had accepted Christianity until now, had been Jews
either by birth or by conversion, or Samaritans. The Samaritans might
be heretics who did not believe in worshipping at Jerusalem but they
did accept the Mosaic Law. Even the Nubian eunuch baptized by
Philip accepted the Mosaic Law, since he worshipped at the Temple
at Jerusalem and no one could do so without being circumcised.
Here, though, Peter had eaten with a heathen who, however devout
and well disposed toward Judaism and Christianity, was not circum-
cised. Furthermore, Peter had allowed a man to become a Christian
without having first become a Jew— he had short-circuited the Mosaic
Law, so to speak.
This did not sit well with the Christians of Jerusalem:
Acts 11:2. . . . when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that
were of the circumcision contended with him,
Acts 11:3. Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and
didst eat with them.
1028
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Peter explained his side of the matter and Acts makes it appear that
this explanation won over the rest:
Acts 11:18. When they [the dissatisfied disciples] heard these
things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath
God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
But this may not be a fair representation of events. The writer of
Acts is Luke, a Gentile, and he presents a pro-Gentile view which
would tend to minimize the role of the Hebrew group and soft-pedal
their anti-Gentile prejudices. It may well be that Peter was not so
easy a victor and that he was forced to back-track by the Hebrew group
under James, the brother of Jesus. Thus, in the Epistle to the Galatians,
Peter is criticized for weakness:
Galatians 2:12. For before that certain [emissaries] came from
James, he [Peter] did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were
come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were
of the circumcision.
Even if Peter backed down, it is scarcely likely that the conversion
of Cornelius and his friends was revoked. Perhaps we might speculate
that the conversion was allowed to stand provided that those converted
submitted to circumcision and to other necessary ritual. And perhaps
Peter promised to be more careful in the future. Certainly, no further
conversions by Peter are mentioned.
Nevertheless, a Gentile had been converted and Christianity had
made its first cautious step beyond the bounds of the Mosaic Law.
Antioch
What was difficult for Peter to do within Judea under the strict eyes
of the Jerusalem community of Christians, was easier for those Chris-
tians who were far away. Those who had been scattered after the
stoning of Stephen had been baptizing, as Philip had done, but some-
times in a carefully limited way:
Acts 11:19. Now they which were scattered abroad . . . travelled
as far as Phenice [Phoenicia] and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching
the word to none but unto the Jews only.
ACTS 1029
Others, however, did more:
Acts 11:20. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene,
which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Gre-
cians . . .
Acts 11:21. . . . and a peat number [of the Grecians] be-
lieved . . .
Here the word "Grecians" in 11:20 is clearly intended to be opposed
to the "Jews only" of the verse before, so that it can be taken that
Greeks, or perhaps Greek-speaking Syrians, were being proselytized
and were being converted directly to Christianity.
In Antioch, the church began to take on, for the first time, not
only a Grecian, but a Gentile tinge. It is not surprising, then, that it
was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first really noticed by
the Gentiles and were first given a distinct Greek name:
Acts 11:26. . . . And the disciples were called Christians first in
Antioch.
Antioch, the capital city of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, the
great villain of the Maccabean revolt, thus became the first major
center of Christianity outside Judea, and the birthplace of the word
by which the world's dominant religion of today came ever after to be
known. The name may have first been applied to the followers of Jesus
as a derisive insult shouted out by unconverted Gentile opponents. If
so, the call of derision came to be accepted by the disciples as a
badge of honor. It is not the only time in history that an insult has
been accepted by the insulted and made clean. The name of the
modern sect of "Quakers" is an example of that phenomenon too.
"Quaker" originated as a term of ridicule.
The developing church at Antioch quickly grew to be of crucial
importance. Although Antioch was no longer the capital of a great
independent kingdom, it remained a huge and wealthy city of some
half million population. In New Testament times, it was the third
largest city in the empire, with only Rome itself and Alexandria larger.
The church in Antioch was bound to be more prosperous than the
churches in Judea, for even Jerusalem, however important it might seem
to Biblically minded Jews, was only a provincial town in comparison
to a place like Antioch.
As a matter of fact, Antioch remained a great city throughout the
1030
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
period of the Roman Empire, but it never recovered from an earth-
quake and a Persian sack in the sixth century a.d. Today it is part of
the modern nation of Turkey, bearing the still-recognizable name of
Antakya and with a population of nearly fifty thousand.
The leaders at Jerusalem, upon hearing reports of growing numbers
of conversions in Antioch, might well have felt uneasy. Were these
conversions, far from their own careful oversight, only of Gentiles who
agreed to be circumcised and uphold the Mosaic Law, or were they
not?
Then, too, we might imagine them wondering whether it was wise
to allow Antioch to go its way uncontrolled. A swelling Christian
community in a city fully three hundred miles north of Jerusalem
might develop traditions of its own and begin to represent a compet-
ing center. Internal quanels between the Christians of different cities
would certainly be bad for Christians as a whole.
The leaders of the Jerusalem church therefore sent Barnabas as
their emissary to Antioch, to serve as a connecting link. Bamabas,
recognizing that the task was more than he could himself carry through,
remembered his oJd friend, whose fiery spirit, he felt sure, was equal
to any task:
Acts 11:25. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
Acts 11:26. And when he had found him, he brought him unto
Antioch.
In this way, Saul was restored to activity after his years of vegetation
in Tarsus.
Claudius Caesar
When, however, was it that Saul came to Antioch? Speculation with
regard to this question is tempting for at this point Acts refers to two
historical events that can be independently dated.
First, there was a famine in Judea:
Acts 11:27. And in these days . . .
Acts 11:28. . . . there . . . [was prophesied] great dearth through-
out all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius
Caesar.
ACTS 1031
Tiberius, Rome's second emperor, under whom Jesus had been
crucified, died in a.d. 37, about eight years after the crucifixion and
perhaps not more than a couple of years after Saul's conversion.
Tiberius was followed by his grandnephew, who, under the name
Caligula, became Rome's third emperor.
Caligula ruled for four years only, and for at least half this time was
quite mad. He is not mentioned in the Bible, but from Josephus we
know that in his lunatic desire to be worshipped as a God, he ordered
that his statue be set up in the Temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused
vehemently and completely; undoubtedly if Caligula had insisted on
erecting such a statue, there would have been a bloody rebellion. Un-
doubtedly Caligula would have insisted anyway, but before things
could come to the final break, the emperor was assassinated in a.d. 41.
He was succeeded by his uncle, Claudius, a much gentler and
saner man, though rather weak and not really a successful ruler. How-
ever, he did rule for thirteen years, from 41 to 54 a.d., so that merely
to say that a famine occurred "in the days of Claudius Caesar" gives
unsatisfactory leeway.
To be sure, no famine occurred at this time "throughout all the
world" but allowance must be made for Jewish nationalism. The
phrase was probably used to mean "throughout all Judea"— that is,
throughout all the world that counted.
Josephus does speak of hard times in Judea in a.d. 46-48, but how
close is that to the time of Saul's arrival in Antioch? The Biblical
phrase "in those days" is not necessarily precise but can be used to
signify a very rough contemporaneity. The famine certainly came after
Saul's arrival in Antioch, for later he is one of those from Antioch who
carries relief to Judea on the occasion of the famine.
The famine, however, may have come fully two or three years after
Saul's coming to Antioch.
Herod Agrippa I
A second reference to something that can be used chronologically
follows almost at once:
Acts 12:1. Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth
his hands to vex certain of the church.
Acts 12:2. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
1032
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Dominions of Herod Agrippa I
ACTS 1033
This is not Herod Antipas, or any of the Herods of the gospels,
but a new member of the family altogether, one not previously re-
ferred to in the Bible. It is Herod Agrippa.
He was bom about 10 b.c. and was the son of Aristobulus, who was
in turn the son of Herod the Great by his second wife, Mariamne the
Maccabean. The little boy received his name in honor of Agrippa, the
son-in-law of the Roman emperor, Augustus. Agrippa had died shortly
before but he had been a favorite of both the emperor and the Roman
people, and a close friend besides of Herod the Great. Through his
grandmother, be it noted, Herod Agrippa was of Maccabean descent.
In 6 b.c. Herod Agrippa's father, Aristobulus, and his uncle, Alexan-
der, were executed by Herod. They were the last two adult sprigs of
the Maccabean line, and all that were left were three children. There
was Herod Agrippa and a younger brother (who was eventually to be
known as Herod of Chalcis) and also a sister, Herodias (who was later
to be the death of John the Baptist).
In view of Herod the Great's pathologically suspicious nature, it
was thought best to take the young Herod Agrippa to Rome. There,
as an Eastern princeling, he was treated with every consideration.
Indeed, he became quite a favorite with Antonia, sister-in-law of the
Emperor Tiberius and mother of the future Emperor Claudius.
As a grown man, Herod Agrippa returned to his homeland, and
there he found his sister the wife of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee.
His sister obtained a lucrative position for him in the capital, but
Herod Agrippa was a happy-go-lucky man who found that his ex-
penses always outran his income. He soon became too expensive a
luxury for his sister, quarreled with Herod Antipas, and had to leave
for Rome again in a.d. 36.
In Rome he became friends with the young Caligula, heir to the
throne. He became so friendly in fact that the old emperor, Tiberius
(as suspicious as Herod the Great), suspected him of conniving to
hasten Caligula's accession to the throne. Herod Agrippa was thrown
into prison, but within six months Tiberius was dead anyway and
Caligula at once liberated his friend.
Caligula made Herod Agrippa king of the realm that had been
formerly held by his half uncle, Philip the Tetrarch (see page 798) ,
who had died three years earlier in a.d. 34.
Herod Antipas, who still ruled in Galilee, was annoyed at this
elevation of his scapegrace half nephew, and demanded the title of
1034
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
king for himself, too. Herod Agrippa's friendship for the new young
emperor, however, was more than enough to counterbalance Antipas'
maneuvering and the latter was relieved of his post in a.d. 39 after
having ruled for thirty-three years. Galilee was added to Herod Agrip-
pa's dominions and Antipas died soon after in banishment.
When Caligula was assassinated, Herod Agrippa found himself no
worse off. His sponsorship by Antonia meant that he had known
Claudius, the new emperor, for a long time. Furthermore, the bumbling
Claudius found himself uncertain in his initial dealings with the Senate
and the smooth and sophisticated Herod Agrippa helped him out. The
grateful Claudius appointed Herod Agrippa as king of the entire realm
that had once been ruled by Herod the Great. This was in a.d. 41.
For the last time, Judea bore the appearance, at least, of independ-
ence and greatness and, indeed, for a short time, the land stood at
the peak of prosperity and was materially better off than ever it had
been since the days of Solomon. It had no foreign enemies and the
danger of war did not threaten. It could relax in profound peace
under the benevolent shadow of the Roman Empire as ruled by a
weak but well-intentioned emperor.
Herod Agrippa I felt it politic to try to ingratiate himself with his
Jewish subjects. He had already gained popularity with them by trying
to persuade the mad Caligula not to place the imperial statue in the
Temple. Even for a good friend of Caligula that was a rash move
and might have been the end of him if Caligula had lived. Caligula
died and Herod Agrippa I was safe, but the Jews appreciated the risk
he had taken.
Herod Agrippa I scrupulously adhered to all the tenets of Judaism,
hoping to make the Jews forget his Idumean origins (for his Maccabean
descent was through women while the Idumean descent was through
men). This he apparently succeeded in doing for when, during a Pass-
over feast, he wept that he was not a full Jew by birth, the spectators,
weeping in sympathy, are supposed to have called out that he was a
Jew, and their brother.
Clearly, it would be politically profitable for him to display his Jewish
zealousness by cracking down on the Christian church which was of-
fending the mainstream of Judaism more than ever by their admission
of uncircumcised Gentiles. When James the son of Zebedee was ex-
ecuted, that was the first recorded death of one of the original twelve
(barring that of Judas Iscariot).
ACTS 1035
Herod Agrippa I also imprisoned Peter, who, according to Acts,
was miraculously liberated, and who then hastened to a friend's house:
Acts 12:12. ... he came to the house of Mary the mother of
John, whose surname was Mark . . .
It is this John Mark who, according to tradition, was the author
of the earliest gospel, the second in order in the New Testament
(see page 905).
The time in which this persecution took place can be set fairly
closely, for Herod Agrippa I had only a short reign, dying suddenly
in aj>. 44, in the course of games at Caesarea being held in honor of
Claudius. That the Herod referred to in this chapter is indeed Herod
Agrippa I is shown by the description (in miraculous terms) of that
sudden death:
Acts 12:21. . . . Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his
throne . . .
Acts 12:23. And . . . the angel of the Lord smote him . . . and he
. . . gave up the ghost.
His death was an unparalleled disaster for the Jews. Had he lived
another twenty years, as he might have done, his shrewd ability to
placate both Jews and Romans might have kept the peace between
them and might have established a stable dynasty that would have
lasted far beyond his time. The Jewish rebellion might, just possibly,
not have come to pass.
As it was, he died leaving a teen-age son, whom Claudius would not
trust on the difficult throne of Judea. The land passed under the rule
of procurators once more— and under them, Judea chafed more and
more until it erupted in the disastrous rebellion of aj>. 66.
For the Christians, on the other hand, Herod Agrippa's sudden death
was just as unparalleled a blessing. Had he lived, his strong hand might
slowly have beaten down Christianity within his dominions and his
influence with the Roman government might have served to see to it
that Christianity was suppressed outside Judea, too.
His death made that impossible and, furthermore, by removing the
only possible man who could conceivably have prevented the Jewish
rebellion, the permanent weakening of Judaism came to pass and on
1036
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the ruins of Judea, Christianity was able to flourish, grow, and, even-
tually, conquer Rome and the Western world.
Since Herod Agrippa I reigned from a.d. 41 to 44, it follows that
the death of James son of Zebedee took place during this interval,
possibly in 43. Perhaps Saul's coming to Antioch also took place about
then.
Cyprus
The fact that the daughter church at Antioch was outstripping the
mother church at Jerusalem was clear by the time of Herod Agrippa I.
The Jerusalem church, plagued by famine and by the heavy hand of
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
the king, was impoverished, and the church at Antioch, wealthy and
secure in comparison, sent relief:
ACTS
1037
Acts 11:29. . . . the disciples [at Antioch], every man according
to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which
dwelt in Judaea:
Acts 11:30. Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the
hands of Barnabas and Saul.
The verse which tells of the return to Antioch of Barnabas and
Saul, after their mission to Jerusalem, comes immediately after those
relating the death of Herod Agrippa I. Perhaps the return to Antioch
took place in a.d. 46, when the famine, according to Josephus, was
first making its effects seriously felt.
Barnabas and Saul did not go back to Antioch alone:
Acts 12:25. . . . Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, . . .
and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
John Mark was, apparently, a nephew of Barnabas, for he is so
referred to in the Epistle to the Colossians:
Colossians 4:10. Aristarchus my feUowprisoner saluteth you, and
Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas . . .
The vigor of the Antioch church is also indicated by its readiness to
engage in missionary activities. Immediately upon the return of Barna-
bas and Saul, perhaps before aj>. 46 was over, the two were sent
across the sea, with John Mark as their assistant.
Acts 13:4. So they [Barnabas and Saul] . . . departed unto Seleu-
da; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Acts 13:5. And when they were at Salamis, they preached the
word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John
to their minister.
Thus, Saul set forth on what was to be his first missionary voyage.
It began in Seleucia, a western suburb of Antioch. Seleucia was on
the Mediterranean coast and served as Antioch's seaport. It had been
founded in 300 b.c. by Seleucus I (who had also founded Antioch)
and it had been named in honor of himself.
Cyprus may have been one of the sites from which the Philistines
launched their invasions of Egypt and the Canaanite coast at the
time of the Exodus (see page I-201), but it had played no further part
in pre-Exilic Jewish history.
1038
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Cyprus was early colonized both by Phoenicians and Greeks, though
it was politically dominated first by Assyria and then by Persia. After
the death of Alexander the Great, Cyprus moved into the orbit of the
Ptolemies and remained under rulers of that line for two and a half
centuries. It was in this time, undoubtedly, that Jews entered Cyprus
in sizable numbers, under the protection of the tolerant Ptolemies. In
58 B.C., Cyprus was annexed by Rome.
Salamis, on the eastern shore of the island, was its chief city in
ancient times. It was Greek, and was reputedly settled by colonists
from the small Greek island of Salamis near Athens (the Salamis
that is famous as the site of the battle at which the Greek fleet
defeated the Persians under Xerxes). This tradition may be the
result of nothing more than the coincidence of names, however.
Salamis had an important Jewish colony and it was reasonable
that the church at Antioch send a mission there. The city was not very
far off, only 130 miles by sea. Furthermore, Barnabas was himself a
Cypriote Jew and, very possibly, although the Bible does not say so, a
native of Salamis. He was, in a sense, returning home. (His reputed
tomb is located near the site of that city and also there is the
"monastery of St. Barnabas.")
Paphos
Barnabas and Saul then traveled the full width of Cyprus:
Acts 13:6. . . . they had gone through the isle unto Paphos . . .
Paphos was best known in ancient times as the site of religious
fertility rites in connection with a goddess whom the Greeks identified
with Aphrodite (who was therefore sometimes called the "Paphian
goddesV).
It was second only to Salamis in size among the Cypriote cities.
In 15 b.c. it had been virtually destroyed by an earthquake but it had
been rebuilt by Augustus and had recovered to the point of serving
as the seat of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus, at the time
of the missionary voyage of Barnabas and Saul.
ACTS
1039
Paul
Sergius Paulus, the proconsul, was, apparently, interested in Judaism.
He was, perhaps, being instructed in that faith by a Jew attached
to his court; a Jew who is described in Acts with a natural lack of
sympathy:
Acts 13:6. . . . they [Barnabas and Saul] found [in Paphos]
a certain sorcewr, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-
jesus:
Acts 13:8. . . . the sorcerer . . . withstood them [Bamabas and
Paulus . . .
Sergius Paulus was curious to meet these new men, concerning
whom he must have heard reports to the effect that they were
preaching a novel and interesting variety of Judaism. Bar-jesus at-
tempted to dissuade the proconsul from this step, since Bamabas and
Saul must have seemed, in his eyes, dangerous heretics, and in-
dividuals who would compete with him for favor in the eyes of the
Roman official.
There may even have been a dispute between them with Sergius
Paulus as an interested onlooker and audience:
Acts 13:8. . . . the sorcerer . . . withstood them [Bamabas and
Saul], seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
Saul, however, denounced Bar-jesus and had him miraculously
stricken with blindness, thus securing the conversion of the proconsul.
This act is an important turning point in Saul's life. Many Jews
in New Testament times had Gentile names, either Greek or Roman.
Among the apostles, for instance, there were Andrew and Philip, both
excellent Greek names. The seven Grecian leaders (see page 1006) all
had Greek names; the name "Stephen" means "crown." Sometimes
an individual had both a Jewish name and a Gentile name in addition,
the latter for use in official dealings with Gentile representatives of the
government perhaps. Thus, we have John [Hebrew] Mark [Roman].
The case was the same with Saul, who apparently had a second
name for use with Gentiles— Paulus or, in English, Paul. At the time
1040
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of the confrontation with Bar-jesus, the author of Acts makes the
transition from one to the other:
Acts 13:9. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) . . . set his eyes
on him [Bar-jesus] . . .
Up to this point Saul/Paul was called nothing but Saul; after this
point he is called nothing but Paul, and it is as Saint Paul that he is
known to us.
The transition would seem significant. It comes at a time when
Paul (as we shall now call him) was engaged for the first time in
converting a Gentile, and in so doing, was opposed by a Jew.
It may even be that Paul was faced with a crucial decision. Sergius
Paulus may have been hesitating over conversion to Judaism because
of his reluctance to undergo circumcision and undertake the duties and
rites (strange to his own culture) of the Mosaic Law. If Paul could
require of him faith in Jesus as the Messiah, without circumcision and
the Mosaic Law, the conversion might be won.
It was certainly an important conversion since Sergius Paulus was
the most important man on the whole island, and would have meant
a triumph for Paul. Acts, which throughout tends to minimize the
dispute among Christians over the manner of converting Gentiles, does
not go into detail here, but the supposition that Sergius Paulus was
converted without circumcision (and, what is more important, without
the stipulation of later circumcision) is a reasonable one, in the light
of later events.
The change from the Hebrew Saul to the Roman Paul may therefore
be symbolic of Paul's shift away from the Mosaic Law and toward
what we might call the Gentilization of Christianity.
Then, too, the change in name may have been influenced by the
name of the proconsul. The Bible does not say that Paul was always
the apostle's Roman name from birth, or even from youth. It is
never referred to until this point. Could it have been adopted at this
point, in honor of Sergius Paulus, or in honor of Paul's victory in
securing the conversion of the proconsul? Perhaps so.
Another significance to the change in name may be that now Paul
finally felt that he had left his origin behind him. The handicap
of having once been a persecutor of Christians had been a heavy one,
even after Paul had convinced the disciples of the sincerity of his
conversion. When Bamabas had called him to Antioch, he had still had
ACTS 1 04 1
to take a back seat. When the five leaders of the Antioch church are
named, Paul is named last:
Acts 13:1. Now there were in the church that was at Antioch
certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon . . . and
Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen . . . and Said.
(Some have wondered if this Lucius of Cyrene might not be the
Luke who wrote the third gospel and Acts, see page 916.)
Again, Paul's activities in the church up to and including the
start of this first missionary voyage were only under the sponsorship
and continuing protection of Barnabas, as though without the presence
of that dedicated Christian, Paul could not maintain himself against
the memory in the mind of the fellowship of what he had done at
the time of the stoning of Stephen.
Even Paul himself finds forgiveness hard:
1 Corinthians 15:9. For J am the least of the apostles, that
am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church
of God.
Perhaps, then, Paul felt that the conversion of Sergius Paulus finally
tipped the scales in his favor and his early sins had been made up for.
The offending Saul could now be wiped away and the newborn and
triumphant Christian, Paul, could be put in his place.
PamphyUa
Leaving Paphos, the missionaries crossed the sea again, and here a
new change appears, following hard upon the change in name from
Saul to Paul.
Acts 13:13. Now when Paul and his company loosed from
Paphos . . .
Until this point, whenever Paul and Bamabas had been mentioned
together it had always been as "Barnabas and Saul." There is no
question but that Bamabas was the older man, the leader, the sponsor,
the more considerable.
Now, however, it is "Paul and his company." Paul emerges as the
leader and everyone else falls back into subsidiary place. This con-
1042
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
tinues throughout the rest of Acts. It is Paul, Paul, and Paul. When
Paul's associates are mentioned they are little more than names that
appear and disappear, the details of their comings and goings not
being given, while all attention is paid to Paul.
How did this come about? How is it that just at the place of
the name change and of the conversion of Sergius Paulus, the apostle
became dominant?
We might argue that when Paul and Barnabas were put to the task
of wresting Sergius Paulus from the grasp of the Jewish teacher,
Bar-jesus, Barnabas flinched away from Paul's suggestion that circum-
cision be put aside. He fell back, uncertain, and it was Paul who then
advanced to combat with Bar-jesus. In taking the initiative at this
crucial point, Paul established his ascendancy over Bamabas, an as-
cendancy Barnabas could never retake.
That this may well be so would appear from Paul's statement in the
Epistle to the Galatians. When he is scolding those Christians who
clung to the Mosaic Law and who were reluctant to take the chance
of eating and otherwise consorting with Gentiles, Paul says:
Galatians 2:13. . . . Barnabas also was carried away with their
dissimulation.
Barnabas, like Peter, wanted to accept Gentiles, but could not
quite bring himself to do so in the face of his early training and
the disapproval of the conservatives under James.
Paul and his group reach the coast of Asia Minor:
Acts 13:13. . . . they came to Perga in Pamphylia . . .
Pamphylia is the section of the Asia Minor seacoast just to the north-
west of Cyprus. To reach Perga, the chief city of Pamphylia, from
Paphos in Cyprus, is about a two-hundred-mile sea journey. Pamphylia
lay immediately to the west of Cilicia (Paul's home province) and
was very like it in culture. In 25 B.C., Pamphylia had been annexed by
Rome.
Apparently the quarrel between Paul and other members of the
group intensified in the course of this voyage. At least we might
assume so from the fact that one important member of the party left
and returned home.
Acts 13:13. . . . and ]ohn departing from them returned to
Jerusalem.
ACTS 1043
It may be that John Mark was simply homesick or ill. Acts gives
no reason for the departure. Yet the separation seems to have been
viewed with anger by Paul and was the occasion later for a quarrel
between Paul and Barnabas, and that would indicate something
serious.
It is easy to assume a doctrinal dispute. John Mark was of the
Hebrew group of Christians, apparently. If he were indeed the au-
thor of the second gospel, we would have to assume that he was con-
servative with respect to the Mosaic Law, for Mark stresses Jesus' con-
tempt for Samaritans and Gentiles and portrays him in the strict light
of Judaism.
Pisidia
From Perga (the capital of Pamphylia, a town situated ten miles
north of the coast), Paul traveled northward to a town where there
was an important Jewish colony:
Acts 13:14. . . . when they departed from Perga, they came
to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath
day . . .
Pisidia was the district just north of Pamphylia. Its chief city had
been founded by Seleucus I, who named it Antioch after his father,
just as he had named the other city he had founded in Syria.
It was the latter which grew into a metropolis and came to be the
Antioch meant when that name was used without qualification. The
Pisidian capital must be identified as "Antioch in Pisidia." Like
Pamphylia, Pisidia became Roman in 25 b.c.
Paul was invited to preach in the synagogue and he promptly
told the audience the tale of Jesus, much as Stephen had done in
Jerusalem a decade and a half before. Many of the congregation were
impressed by the speech, sufficiently so to want to hear more the next
Sabbath. The King James Version expresses this in, apparently, a mis-
translated manner, for it says:
Acts 13:42. And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue,
the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them
the next sabbath.
]()44 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
This makes it seem that the Gentiles were readier to accept Paul's
message than the Jews were, but what would Gentiles be doing in the
synagogue?
The Revised Standard Version makes no mention of Gentiles at all
but translates the verse as follows: "As they (Paul and Barnabas]
went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the
next sabbath." The Jerusalem Bible translates it similarly as "As they
[Paul and Barnabas] left they were asked to preach on the same
theme the following sabbath."
It was not Gentiles that were attracted to Paul's teachings, but
some of the congregation, some of the Jews. This is admitted by the
King James Version in the very next verse:
Acts 13:43. Now when the congregation was broken up, many
of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas . . .
The Jewish leaders, however, apparently argued strenuously against
the Messianic thesis of Paul, insisting that Jesus could not have rep-
resented the fulfillment of the Messianic dream. Their authority
swung opinion away from Paul once more.
To Paul, this must have been extremely irritating. He had scored a
gTeat victory with the conversion of Sergius Paulus, a Gentile, and now
he was experiencing nothing but frustration with the stubborn Jews—
his fellow religionists— who, it must have seemed to him, should most
naturally have turned to Jesus. Paul, therefore, lost his temper:
Acts 13:46. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It
was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken
to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves un-
worthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
It is this decision to turn to the Gentiles that caused the trans-
laters of the King James Version (perhaps) to drag in, most un-
justifiably, the earlier approval of Gentiles of Paul's teachings.
Paul did not turn to the Gentiles exclusively. His ultimatum was
for that city alone and in every new city that Paul entered, he always
approached the Jews first. But always, when they rejected him, he
turned to the Gentiles of that city. What had been perhaps an im-
pulsive act, under the temptation of snagging a rich catch in Paphos,
was now becoming a settled policy.
ACTS
1045
Paul justified this by pointing out a passage in the Second Isaiah,
where the suffering servant is said to be intended for more than
merely to restore Israel and Judah from exile. The ideal Messianic
kingdom is to shed its glory over all the Earth, that Gentiles might
admire and, perhaps, undergo conversion:
Isaiah 49:6. . . . I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles,
that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Apparently Paul was beginning to view himself as that light to the
Gentiles of whom Second Isaiah had spoken.
Lycaonia
Despite the winning of converts, Jewish opposition was formidable
enough to drive Paul and Bamabas out of Antioch in Pisidia. They
headed southeastward some eighty miles:
Acts 13:51. . . . and came unto Iconium.
Iconium was the chief city of the Asia Minor region called Lycaonia,
which lay east of Pisidia and north of Cilicia and which, like the latter
two, had become Roman in 25 b.c. Of the cities that Paul visited in
the first missionary voyage, Icoriium survived best. It is the eighth
largest city of modern Turkey, under the recognizable name of Konya,
and has a population of over 120,000.
Paul and Barnabas preached in Iconium, and the conversions
they succeeded in making again roused the dangerous ire of the
leading Jews. The missionaries moved again, southward this time:
Acts 14:6. They . . . fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of
Lycaonia . . .
These cities, fifty and thirty miles, respectively, south of Iconium,
are important in history only because of the visits now paid them
by Paul.
In Lystra, Paul heals a cripple and the missionaries are promptly
hailed as gods by the pagan crowds:
Acts 14:12. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mer-
curius, because he was the chief speaker.
1046
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
It was common in later Greek myths to tell of trips to Earth by
Zeus (Jupiter, in Latin) and Hermes (Mercurius, in Latin, which
becomes Mercury in English). The best-known such tale in modem
times is that of Philemon and Baucis, a poor old couple, who lived in
Asia Minor. When Zeus and Hermes appeared in humble guise, the
old couple offered them their bit of hospitality when their neighbors
turned the gods away. As a result the neighbors were punished, but
the poor hut of Philemon and Baucis was converted into a beautiful
temple in which they served as priest and priestess, and they were
further granted the boon of ending their life together and remaining
united in death.
The tale was told by the Roman poet Ovid a generation earlier
and must have been known throughout the Roman world and been
of particular interest to those of Asia Minor.
The fact that Bamabas is considered Zeus and Paul Mercury, is
often interpreted as meaning that Bamabas presented a distinguished
appearance, while Paul did not. In fact, it is common to suppose that
Paul was of small stature and unprepossessing appearance, and sickly,
too.
Paul himself was given to stressing his own physical shortcomings,
perhaps out of modesty, and perhaps as a shrewd, strategic device.
Thus, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, he describes his
opponents as saying:
2 Corinthians 10:10. . . . his [Paul's] bodily presence is weak,
and his speech contemptible.
This may be Paul's Socratic irony, which, by deliberately making
himself out to be clearly worse than he really is, produces a reaction
which makes him seem better than he would otherwise appear. This
must be true concerning his reference to his speech, since his speech
had to be anything but contemptible, judging from the effects it had.
The very fact that he was called Hermes "because he was the
chief speaker" shows this. Indeed, naming Paul Hermes may be taken
to be in his favor rather than the reverse. In the visits of Zeus and
Hermes to Earth, as told in Greek legends, Zeus, as the chief god,
may have felt it beneath his dignity to do much more than look
stately and benign, leaving the actual activity to Hermes. Presumably
this now was the position with the missionaries. Bamabas, still titular
head of the group, but worried about Paul's activities among the
ACTS 1047
Gentiles, may have withdrawn more and more into a grave silence,
while his supposed subordinate, Paul, must have talked with ever-
increasing assurance on every occasion.
To be sure, Paul occasionally speaks of some infirmity he has:
2 Corinthians 12:7. And lest I should be exalted above measure
. . . there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of
Satan to buffet me . . .
What that "thorn in the flesh" might be is not explicitly stated.
Paul seems to dislike talking about it and seems to feel that his
listeners know all about it anyway and don't need to have it detailed
to them.
It is supposed that it is some sort of recurrent illness, which
periodically "buffeted" him, and incapacitated him from work. Thus,
he says at one point:
1 Corinthians 2:3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear,
and in much trembling.
This may be a metaphorical way of saying he came into the
Christian fellowship to preach, not in a vainglorious, self-confident
way, but with diffident shyness, afraid to pit himself against those
who must know so much more than he. If so, this, too, must be
Socratic irony, for there is no trace of diffident shyness in any of the
words or acts attributed to Paul, either before or after his conversion.
On the other hand, some interpret this as referring to a sickness,
perhaps to the trembling fits induced by recurrent malaria.
It is also suggested by some that Paul suffered from epileptic fits.
These would be periodic, of course, and since epilepsy was widely
supposed to be caused by demonic possession, Satan could be re-
garded as buffeting him in the course of these seizures in all literal
truth.
Lending this thought some support is Paul's remark in the course
of a speech to the Jews of Jerusalem, describing his religious ex-
periences. He said that at one point:
Acts 22:17. . . . when I was come again to Jerusalem, even
while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance . . .
Of course, there are many reasons besides epilepsy for trances, but
if Paul is considered an epileptic, it becomes possible to argue that
1048
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
what happened near Damascus was a severe epileptic fit that involved
a hallucination which Paul interpreted as representing Jesus. If so,
epilepsy changed the course of the world in this case at least.
Yet all such arguments concerning Paul's physical appearance and
the state of his health rest on very insecure foundations. If, instead,
we go by Paul's endless energy, the travelings he endured, the tribula-
tions he surmounted, we can only suppose that he was a man of phe-
nomenal strength and health.
Thus, after Paul had, with difficulty, persuaded the pagans of
Lystra not to worship himself and Barnabas as gods, Jews from
Antioch in Pisidia and from Iconium roused the people against them
and the situation changed at once. From gods they became blas-
phemers, and Paul was stoned and left for dead. To be stoned until
one appears dead is to be battered indeed, yet Paul managed to
struggle to his feet and the next day to leave Lystra with Barnabas
and to travel to Derbe. No weak and sickly man could have managed
that.
Attalia
Paul and Barnabas were now ready to return to Antioch, and from
Derbe they might easily have traveled southeastward a hundred
and twenty miles or so to the Cilician seacoast and there taken ship
for Antioch. They might even have struck farther eastward and
visited Paul's home at Tarsus.
Paul did not do this. In fact, he does not appear to have done
much in Cilicia in the course of his missionary labors. Could he have
completed the job as far as possible during his years in Tarsus before
Barnabas called him to Antioch? Or (more likely) was he, like Jesus,
a prophet without honor in his own country?
In any case, the missionaries chose, instead, to retrace their steps,
visiting again the churches they had founded in the various cities
they had visited:
Acts 14:25. And when they had preached the word in Perga,
they went down into Attalia:
Acts 14:26. And thence sailed to Antioch . . .
ACTS 1049
Attalia was the seaport of Perga. It had been founded by Attalus II
of Pergamum and named for its founder. Thus ended Paul's first
missionary voyage.
Silas
Paul's report of his activities, particularly of his acceptance of
Gentiles directly, without requiring them to undergo the full yoke of
the Mosaic Law, was apparently accepted by the church at Antioch:
Acts 14:27. . . . they [Paul and Barnabas] . . . gathered the
church [at Antioch] together, [and] they rehearsed all that God
had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith
unto the Gentiles.
There was, however, considerable disapproval of this when word
reached the Christian elders in Jerusalem. The faction led by James
considered the Mosaic Law essential:
Acts 15:1. And certain men which came down [to Antioch]
from Judea . . . send, Except ye be circumcised after the manner
of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Who these men might have been is not stated, but one of them
could have been Peter. In the Epistle to the Calatians, Paul may
be referring to this episode, when he said:
Calatians 2:11. Bur when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood
him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Paul taunted Peter with having been willing to eat with Gentiles,
as in the case of Cornelius (seepage 1026), yet veering away under
pressure from James and his group.
The dispute waxed hot and there seemed real danger of infant
Christianity breaking up into two mutually hostile sections. It was
decided, therefore, for representatives of the two wings to get to-
gether and thrash matters out and come to some general conclusions:
Acts 15:2. . . . they [the Christian leaders at Antioch] deter-
mined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should
go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
1050
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
There followed what is termed the Council of Jerusalem, which
is supposed to have taken place in a.d. 48. It may be that James took
up the extreme Mosaic position, Paul the extreme anti-Mosaic position,
while Peter and Barnabas strove for compromise. Thus:
Acts 15:5. But there rose up certain of Vie sect of the Pharisees
which believed [in Jesus], saying, Tliat it was needful to circumcise
them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Peter rose, however (perhaps with Paul's sarcastic words in Antioch
ringing in his ears), to admit that in the case of Cornelius he himself
had accepted an uncircumcised Gentile. He said:
Acts 15:7. ... ye know how that a good while ago God made
choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the
word of the gospel, and believe.
That pulled the rug out from under the Mosaic group. Paul recited
the achievements of his first missionary voyage, probably describing
his actions as following the tradition of Peter. James was forced to
capitulate, giving his reason for doing so, too:
Acts 15:13. . . . James answered . . .
Acts 15:14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit
the Gentiles . . .
(James refers here to Peter by his full Aramaic name, Simeon, as
though the writer of Acts was at pains to demonstrate James's Semitism
even through the Greek in which he was writing.)
Nevertheless, James held out for a compromise by insisting on at
least four ritual abstentions to which converting Gentiles must agree:
Acts 15:20. . . . they [must] abstain from pollutions of idols,
and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
But they were not to be required to undergo circumcision, or to
adhere to the complex dietary laws (not even to abstain from pork,
a cause for which martyrs in Maccabean times had willingly died under
torture).
It was actually a stunning victory for Paul's view. It may have been
on this occasion that Paul (and through him the church at Antioch)
was granted equality with the leaders of the church at Jerusalem.
Paul refers to such an occasion in the Epistle to the Galatians:
ACTS
1051
Galatians 2:9. .. . James, Cephas [Peter], and John . . . gave
to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should
go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
In this way, two wings of Christianity were indeed formed; a
Mosaic wing under James and a Gentile and non-Mosaic wing under
Paul. They were not, howeveT, to be at enmity, but with a negotiated
truce between them. When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch,
men of the church at Jerusalem were selected to accompany them,
almost as though they were to serve as ambassadors of one wing to
the other:
Acts 15:22. Then pleased it the apostles and elders ... to
send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul
and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas . . .
Judas Barsabas is not mentioned elsewhere than in this chapter,
but Silas plays an important later role for he accompanied Paul on
later missionary voyages.
Silas, like Paul, may have been a Roman citizen. At least, when
both later undergo flogging by the Roman authority, Paul speaks of
their citizenship in the plural:
Acts 16:37. . . . Paul said unto them, They have beaten us
[himself and Silas] openly uncondemned, being Romans . . .
If Silas were a Roman citizen, he too might be expected to have
a Latin name, equivalent to the Paul of his companion. In Acts,
Silas is never referred to by any other name, but in some of the
epistles, there is reference to someone of similar name:
1 Thessalonians 1:1. Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto
the church of the Thessalonians . . .
It is usually accepted that Silvanus is the Latin name used by Silas.
Timothy
Some time after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul suggested to Barnabas
that they revisit the churches they had founded in Cyprus and ASia
Minor. Barnabas agreed and suggested they take John Mark again.
1052 ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
Here, Paul disagreed violently, for he felt that John Mark had deserted
them on the first journey:
Acts 15:39. And the contention was so sharp between them,
that they [Paul and Barnabas] departed asunder one from the
other . . .
It may well have been that Paul strongly disapproved of John Mark's
tendencies toward the Mosaic view, and may even have distrusted
Barnabas' own stand in this matter. He felt the latter to be too ready
to compromise with James's group (seepage 104^). Bamabas, on the
other hand, could not so easily condemn his own nephew and may
even have resented the fashion in which Paul had gained the upper
hand
In the end, the itinerary was split between Paul and Barnabas:
acts 1053
Acts 15:39. . . . Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
Acts 15:40. And Paul chose Silas . . .
Acts 15:41. And he went through Syria and Cilicia . , •
Each, in other words, visited his home territory. With this separation,
Barnabas disappears from view and is not further mentioned.
When Paul and Silas reached Lystra in Lycaonia (for Paul merely
passed through Cilicia and, presumably, Tarsus, and there is no mention
of his preaching there) they picked up a new companion:
Acts 16:1. . . . a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the
son of a . . . Jewess [who] . . . believed; but his father was a
Creek.
Apparently Timotheus (Timothy, in English; a name meaning
"honoring God") was a third-generation Christian after a fashion, for
his mother and grandmother had both been converted in the course
of Paul's first missionary visit to Lystra. In Paul's Second Epistle to
Timothy, Paul speaks of:
2 Timothy 1:5. . . . the unfeigned faith . . . which dwelt first in
thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice . . .
The shaky nature of the truce between Paul's wing of Christianity
and that of James was here displayed. Paul wanted to take Timothy
along with him on his trip but Timothy was uncircumcised and
the Christians of Lystra knew it. Apparently, enough of them were of
the Mosaic wing to force Paul into an action of expediency rather
than conviction; especially if there were taken further into considera-
tion the view of the unconverted Jews:
Acts 16:4. Him [Timotheus] would Paul have to go forth with
him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which
were in those quarters . . .
Phrygia and Galatia
Paul visited the churches he had founded:
Acts 16:6. . . . they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region
of Galatia . . .
1054
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Phrygia and Calatia lay in the very center of Asia Minor, north
of Pisidia and Lycaonia. Phrygia did not actually form a distinct
political division in Paul's day. It derived its name from a people
who had dominated Asia Minor over a thousand years before, at the
time of the Trojan War and the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt. It was
applied to a region that formed the eastern section of the kingdom
of Pergamum during the time of the Seleucids. After 133 B.C., it formed
the eastern part of the province of Asia.
Calatia was a comparatively recent formation. It gained its name
from the Cauls who invaded Asia Minor about 278 b.c. By 235 B.C.
they had been defeated and forced to settle down in peace in central
Asia Minor in a region which came to be called Galatia after them.
They were quickly hellenized. In 25 B.C., Galatia was made into a
Roman province and, as a province, its boundaries were altered from
time to time.
Because Galatia, at one time or another, included various districts
of inner Asia Minor, the word came to be used in common speech
to describe the interior of the peninsula generally.
Troas
Having visited the churches he had already established, Paul headed
outward to new pastures. These, however, were not to border on the
old ones, and he passed through western Asia Minor without preach-
ing:
Acts 16:6. . . . they . . . were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to
preach the word in Asia,
Acts 16:7. After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go
into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
Acts 16:8. And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas.
Paul decided not to preach in the cities of the province of Asia
but passed through its northwestern section (Mysia) quickly. Nor did
he turn aside to preach in Bithynia, a section of Asia Minor which
lies to the northeast of Mysia and takes up much of the Black Sea
coast of the peninsula. Bithynia, which is separate from the province
of Asia, became Roman in 65 b.c.
Finally, Paul reached Troas, that part of Mysia which forms the
ACTS
1055
northwestern tip of Asia Minor. The name is given to a small penin-
sula, which bore its name because, twelve centuries before, the city of
Troy had existed there— the city destroyed by the Greeks after the
most famous siege in history.
Troas is a name applied also to a city founded in the vicinity of
the site of ancient Troy. By 300 b.c. it had come to be called
Alexandria Troas (in honor of Alexander the Great), or Troas in
brief. It is to this city rather than to the peninsula that the Biblical
mentions of Troas refer.
It would seem then that having left the churches he had founded,
Paul traveled westward in a great hurry (if we may judge by the manner
in which the journey is compressed into three verses). He must have
traveled with a firm purpose in mind, for he did not veer to either
the left or the right; that is, to preach in either Asia or Bithynia. He
moved, instead, straight into Troas and there found himself six hundred
miles west of Antioch.
Naturally, in the language of the times, this firm purpose driving
Paul onward would be ascribed to the working of the Holy Spirit
forbidding him to preach in either Asia or Bithynia. Some speculate
that this reference to the Spirit is a way of saying that Paul was in
poor health and unable to preach, but there seems no need to indulge
in this supposition. If he were strong enough to travel hundreds of
miles under the arduous conditions of the times, he would be strong
enough to preach. It is easier to suppose that Paul's firm decision, his
strong desire to do what he was planning to do, and nothing else, could
only be interpreted by others, and by himself, too, as the driving force
of the Holy Spirit.
But what was he planning to do? It is tempting to suppose that
when Paul was given official sanction at the Council of Jerusalem to
go to the Gentiles, it occurred to him that he ought to travel to the
very core and fount of Gentile-dom. Why not leave Asia Minor
altogether and penetrate into Europe. The port of Troas was what he
wanted, for from it there would be many ships to take him across the
Aegean and into Macedonia, or even into Greece itself.
Might it not even be that this was his main purpose from the
beginning of his second missionary voyage? That the suggested purpose
to revisit the churches of central Asia Minor was a blind to secure the
blessing of the Antioch community, which might otherwise have
flinched away from too bold a project. Could Paul have confided
1056
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
these plans to Barnabas, and had Barnabas flinched, too, and was this
the true cause of the quarrel between them?
Barnabas, according to this view, lacked the bold vision of Paul,
contented himself with the narrow bounds of Cyprus and stepped
off the stage of history. Paul went onward without Barnabas, and the
future of Christianity went with him.
Macedonia
Once in Troas, Paul lost no time in moving into Europe; a move
which the writer of Acts explains in appropriate Biblical terms:
Acts 16:9. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There
stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over
into Macedonia, and help us.
Acts 16:10. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we
endeavoured to go into Macedonia . . .
Macedonia, which in the reign of Alexander the Great had con-
quered a vast empire, had since 146 b.c. been merely part of the
Roman realm. For two centuries it had remained peacefully somnolent
under Rome's vast shadow and virtually lacked a history. In the eyes
of later generations (but not of contemporaries, of course) it was
only Paul's coming that finally brought back Macedonia into signifi-
cance with respect to the currents of world history.
In Acts 16: 10 there is the sudden use of the pronoun "we"— "we en-
deavoured to go into Macedonia."
The usual conclusion is that Luke, the writer of Acts, is now part
of Paul's party. We cannot say, however, how this came to be. The
author of the book, with frustrating modesty, never says anything of
himself. Was Luke a native of Troas who, like Timothy, was converted
and then drawn into the entourage?
In view of the early traditions that he was a Syrian from Antioch,
could he have been an emissary from the church at Antioch sent
after Paul with messages, or, possibly, to bring back news? Did
he overtake Paul in Troas and decide to accompany him?
There is no way of telling from the Biblical account
ACTS 1057
Philippi
It was about aj>. 50 that Paul crossed over into Europe:
Acts 16:11. . . . loosing from Troas, we came with a straight
course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
Acts 16:12. And from thence to Philippi . . .
From Troas to the nearest important seaport of Macedonia was
a 125-mile sea journey to the northwest. This was accomplished in
two stages, with a stopover at Samothrace, a small island in the
northern Aegean Sea (sixty-six square miles in area) which lay ap-
proximately midway from point of embarkation to point of destination.
The Macedonian seaport Neapolis ("New Town"), which lay on
the northern coast of the Aegean Sea, served the town of Philippi,
which lay ten miles inland and was one of the largest of the Mace-
donian cities. Originally, Philippi had been a Greek settlement called
Crenides ("fountains"). In 356 B.C., however, it had been captured
by Philip of Macedon and renamed Philippi in his own honor. Its
importance to Philip lay in the fact that its possession secured him
control of nearby gold mines and Philip used the gold liberally in
the subversion of Greek politicians. It was as much Philip's gold as
Philip's army that helped the Macedonian gain control of Greece.
Between the time of Philip's capture of the city and Paul's arrival
there, only one incident served to bring it into the full glare of
history. After the assassination of Julius Caesar, armies led by the
assassins Brutus and Cassius faced other armies led by Mark Antony
and Octavian. The battle was fought near Philippi in 42 B.C. It was
drawn and uncertain at first, but Cassius, prematurely fearful of defeat,
killed himself, and thereafter Antony and Octavian won a clear victory.
Through their victory at the battle of Philippi, Antony and Octavian
were able to divide the Roman realm between themselves, and, a
dozen years later, Octavian defeated Mark Antony, took over sole
control, and became the Emperor Augustus.
1058
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Lydia
In Philippi, Paul made some conversions:
Acts 16:14. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of
purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us . . .
Acts 16:15. And . . . she was baptized . . .
Lydia was not in use in ancient times as a feminine name and it
is suggested that the woman was not named Lydia, but that she was
from the region of Lydia and that the verse might better be trans-
lated: "And a certain Lydian woman . . ."
Lydia was the name of a kingdom ruling over the western half of
Asia Minor during the period when the Jews were in Babylonian
Exile. From 560 to 546 b.c. it was ruled by Croesus, whose wealth
has become proverbial. In 546 b.c. Croesus was defeated by Cyrus
(see page I-434) and Lydia became part of the Persian Empire. After
the death of Alexander the Great, the region was fought over by his
generals and finally had a rebirth in Greek form as the kingdom of
Pergamum. In 133 b.c, this became Rome's province of Asia, but the
name Lydia could still be applied to the west-central portion of the
province.
The capital of Lydia had been the city of Sardis in west-central
Asia Minor about fifty miles from the Aegean Sea. Thyatira was a
northwestern suburb founded by Seleucus I. It had a thriving trade
in the purple dye that had made the Phoenician city of Tyre famous.
(It was one of the very few dyes known to the ancient world that
would retain its bright color even under the effect of water and
sunlight and it was therefore a most valuable product. Nowadays, of
course, we have any number of synthetic dyes.) The Lydian woman
from Thyatira had brought her trade to a new market and was
probably quite well-to-do as a consequence, for she could afford to put
up Paul's party during their stay in Philippi.
Thus it came about that Paul, who came to Macedonia in search
of new fields for conversion, had as his first convert a woman of Asia
Minor after all.
Paul also found that Gentiles could be persecutors too, and that
it was not only the Jews who were his enemy. The pagans did not,
acts 1059
at that time, distinguish between Jews and Christians and they put
into action a law that forbade Jewish proselytization among Greeks.
Paul and Silas were brought before the magistrate and the accusation
was:
Acts 16:20. . . . These men, being Jews . . .
Acts 16:21. . . . teach customs, which are not lawful for us to
receive, neither to observe, being Romans.
Paul and Silas were flogged and imprisoned for a while and were
released, according to the account in Acts, by a miraculous earthquake.
Apologies were added when it was discovered they were Roman citizens
and had been flogged without a proper trial. No doubt, the claim to
citizenship, once verified, would have sufficed for freedom even without
the earthquake.
Thessalonica
Paul's party left Philippi after that and traveled westward across
Macedonia:
Acts 17:1. Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and
Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the
Jews:
Amphipolis is a city twenty-five miles southwest of Philippi, and
had been founded as an Athenian colony in 436 b.c. when Athens
was at the height of its Golden Age. It was captured by Sparta in
424 b.c. and was taken by Philip of Macedon in 357 B.C. In New
Testament times it was the seat of the Roman governor of that section
of Macedonia, even though it was not actually part of the province
but was considered a free city.
Twenty miles farther southwest was Apollonia, a comparatively un-
important town, and forty miles due west of that was Thessalonica.
Thessalonica is located at the northwestern comer of the Aegean
Sea. It was originally named Therma, from the Greek word meaning
"hot" because of the hot springs in the vicinity. The inlet of the
Aegean Sea, at the end of which it was located, was therefore called
the Thermaic Gulf.
After the death of Alexander the Great, Cassander, the son of one
1060
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of his generals, seized control of Macedonia. This was in 316 b.c. and
he retained his power until his death twenty years later. He married
a half sister of Alexander, a girl named Thessalonica, and in 315 b.c.
he built a new city near Therma and named it Thessalonica in her
honor.
Because of its advantageous position with respect to trade, Thes-
salonica grew rapidly and eventually became one of the most important
cities in Macedonia. Through all historical vicissitudes, it has re-
mained large and important. After the Turkish conquest of Greece
in the fifteenth century, the first syllable dropped away and it became
better known as Salonica.
Even today Salonica is a large city. It is, indeed, the second largest
city of modem Greece, with a population of 250,000.
Thessalonica was the first Macedonian city in which Paul found a
Jewish population large enough to maintain a synagogue. He gained
some conversions but (as, very likely, he had anticipated) many more
from among the Greeks than from among the Jews. The Jewish lead-
ers, annoyed at this, rioted and claimed that Paul was preaching
treason, proclaiming Jesus as a king in opposition to the Roman
Emperor. (It was just this view of the matter which had led Pontius
Pilate to condemn Jesus to crucifixion.) Paul and Silas found it pru-
dent, therefore, to leave Thessalonica.
Berea
The next move was thirty miles to the westward:
Acts 17:10. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and
Silas by night unto Berea . . .
In Paul's time, Berea was a large city, on a par with Thessalonica,
or even larger. It has declined since but it exists in modern Greece,
under the name Verroia, as a sizable town of twenty-five thousand.
It too contained a synagogue and the Jews there are recorded as
having been more sympathetic to Paul than were those of Thessalonica.
Nevertheless, the Thessalonian Jews sent deputations to Berea to
rouse the Jews there to the dangers of this new heresy.
Silas and Timothy remained in Berea for a time, but Paul was sent
away.
ACTS
1061
Athens
This time Paul traveled some two hundred miles southward to the
greatest of all the Greek cities, in reputation and glory, if not in size:
Acts 17:15. . . . they that conducted Paul brought him unto
Athens . . .
In the fifth century B.C., Athens had experienced a Golden Age in
art, literature, and philosophy that in some ways has never been sur-
passed. It was one of a number of small Greek city-states, and Athens,
even though one of the largest among them, was no bigger than the
state of Rhode Island in area or population.
For a while Athens dominated Greece politically and militarily, but
it was defeated in the long and disastrous Peloponnesian War with
Sparta, which lasted from 431 to 404 B.C. A century later, Athens led
the futile opposition to Philip of Macedon.
But Greek city-states were no longer matches for the larger mon-
archies that were growing up on all sides. Athens fell farther and
farther behind, and although it was saved from destruction time and
time again by the universal respect for its great past, it gradually lost
all political importance.
For two centuries it retained its self-government and control over
its own internal affairs, while under the domination of Macedonia.
And after 146 B.C., when Rome established itself as completely domi-
nant over Greece, it nevertheless continued as a free city.
Only once did it waver. In 88 B.C., Mithridates VI of Pontus (a
kingdom in northeastern Asia Minor) dared fight against Rome. He
won initial victories and swept up all the Roman possessions in the
peninsula. Athens, discontented with Roman rule, and misjudging the
situation, declared for Mithridates.
However, Rome sent Sulla, one of its competent generals, eastward,
and a grim Roman army followed him. Athens tried to resist and
withstood a siege but Mithridates did not come to its help and in
86 B.C. Sulla took the city and sacked it. Never again did Athens at-
tempt any independent action of its own.
It settled down to complete submission to the Roman power for as
long as that power existed. It remained with its dreams of the past
1062
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
as a quiet "college town" where Romans and Greeks came for an
education in philosophy.
While Paul waited in this college town for Silas and Timothy to
join him, he disputed with the Jews of the area and stared in horror
and revulsion at the beautiful temples and great works of art by which
he was surrounded, for all seemed to him but wicked objects given
over to idolatry.
Epicureans and Stoics
The Athenian specialty was philosophy. The city had a tradition
of absolutely free speech and it welcomed all sorts of views. Various
philosophers, then, hearing of a stranger in their midst, one who
possessed odd and novel views, sought to know more:
Acts 17:18. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of
the Stoicks, encountered him . . .
The Epicureans and Stoics were two of the important schools of
philosophy current in Athens at the time.
The former was founded by Epicurus, who had been bom on the
Greek island of Samos in 341 b.c. He had established a school in
Athens in 306 b.c. and it remained extremely successful until his death
in 270 b.c. Epicurus adopted the beliefs of certain earlier Greek
philosophers and viewed the universe as made up of tiny particles
called atoms. All change, he maintained, consisted of the random
breakup and rearrangement of groups of these atoms and there was
little room in the Epicurean philosophy for any purposeful direction
of man and the universe by gods. The philosophy was essentially
atheistic, although the Epicureans were not fanatic about that; they
would cheerfully go through rituals they considered meaningless in
order to avoid giving unnecessary offense or creating useless trouble
for themselves.
In a universe consisting of atoms in random movement, man could
be conscious of two things: pleasure and pain. It stood to reason
that man should behave in such a way as to enjoy a maximum of
pleasure and a minimum of pain. It remained only to decide what
was actually a maximum of pleasure. To Epicurus, it seemed that if
a little of some tiling gave pleasure, a lot of it did not necessarily give
ACTS MKn
more pleasure. Starvation through undereating was painful, but indi-
gestion through overeating was also painful. The maximum of pleasure
came from eating in moderation., and so with other joys of life. Then,
too, there were the pleasures of the mind; of learning; of improving
discourse; of the emotions of friendship and affection. These pleasures,
in the view of Epicurus, were more intensely pleasant and desirable
than the ordinary pleasures of the body.
Not all those who followed the Epicurean philosophy were as wise
and moderate as Epicurus himself. It was easy to place the pleasures
of the body first and hard to set any limit to them. So the word
"epicurean" has entered our language as meaning "given to luxury."
So popular did the Epicurean philosophy become in Seleucid times
that to the Jews of the period all Greeks seemed Epicurean. Any
Jew who abandoned his religion for Greek ways became an "Epicurean"
and to this very day, the Jewish term for a Jewish apostate is "Apikoros,"
a quite recognizable distortion of the old term.
The second famous school of Greek philosophy was founded by
Zeno, a Greek (with possibly some Phoenician blood) who was born
on the island of Cyprus at about the time of Epicurus' birth.
Zeno, like Epicurus, founded a school in Athens and taught from
a place where a porch or corridor was adorned with paintings of
scenes from the Trojan War. It was called the "Stoa poikile" ("painted
porch") and Zeno's teachings came therefore to be known as "Stoi-
cism" and his followers "Stoics" (or "Stoicks" in the King James
Version).
Stoicism recognized a supreme God and seemed to be on the road
to a kind of monotheism. It also contended, however, that divine
powers might descend upon all sorts of minor gods and even upon
those human beings who were deified. In this way, stoics could adjust
themselves to prevailing polytheistic practices.
Stoicism saw the necessity of avoiding pain but did not feel that
choosing pleasure was necessarily the best way of avoiding pain. One
could not always choose pleasure correctly and even if one did, that
merely opened the way for a new kind of pain— the pain that arose
when a pleasure once enjoyed was lost. Stoics believed in putting
one's self beyond both pleasure and pain, by cultivating indifference
and lofty detachment of mind, serving justice without emotion. If
you desire nothing, you need fear the loss of nothing. All that counted
lay within a person. If you are master of yourself, you can be the
1064
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
slave to no one. If you live a life that rigidly follows a stern moral
code, you need not fear the agonized uncertainty of day-to-day deci-
sions. To this day, the word "stoic" is used in English to mean "indif-
ferent to pleasure and pain."
At its height, both Epicureanism and Stoicism could produce men
of lofty moral fiber and admirable ethical behavior. This was particu-
larly true of Stoicism. Thus, the most famous Stoic of all was the
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who ruled a little over a century
after Paul's time and who, although a pagan, had many of the qualities
usually associated with a Christian saint.
Dionysius the Areopagite
Apparently Paul's words were sufficiently interesting, or curious, for
the philosophers to bring him to a place where as many of the impor-
tant people of the town could hear him as possible:
Acts 17:19. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus,
saying, May we know what this new doctrine ... is?
The word "Areopagus" means "Hill of Ares" (or "Hill of Mars"
in the Latin version) and was the place where the Athenians main-
tained their chief court. It had been the stronghold of the aristocrats
in the days just prior to Athens' greatness, but as Athens grew more and
more democratic in the course of its Golden Age, the Areopagus lost
more and more of its power. Under Roman domination, the Areopagus
regained some of its prestige and served as the instrument through
which much of the city's internal affairs were conducted.
If Paul had confined himself merely to preaching matters of ethics
and morality he would undoubtedly have received a sympathetic, if
patronizing, hearing from the sophisticated and self-consciously superior
Athenians. However, when he approached his great theme, the resur-
rection of Jesus (a theme that fills his epistles) the Athenians could
not help but laugh:
Acts 17:32. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead,
some mocked . . .
Acts 17:34. Howbeit certain men clave unto him and believed:
among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite . . .
ACTS 1065
Apparently Dionysius is mentioned because he was a member of
Athens' ruling council and, therefore, the most prestigious of Paul's
converts there.
This is the only mention of this convert in the Bible and yet later
tradition built enormously upon this single verse. Possibly it was un-
avoidable Greek snobbery to find an Athenian convert particularly
important just because he was an Athenian.
By the time a century had passed, the tradition arose that Dionysius
the Areopagite had served as the first bishop of Athens.
In the sixth century aj>., the Frankish historian Gregory of Tours
spoke of a bishop named Dionysius who had been sent to Gaul about
a.d. 250. He became bishop of Paris, was martyred, and was eventually
considered the patron saint of France under the French version of his
name, Saint Denis. A century later, Gregory's reference was misinter-
preted to read that Dionysius was sent to Gaul in a.d. 90 and he was
thereupon identified with Dionysius the Areopagite.
And about a.d. 500 some writings appeared in Syria which were
attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite. The forgery was patent and
clear, for it referred to matters that must have taken place many years
after Dionysius' death. The author (who will probably never be known)
is referred to as the pseudo-Dionysius. Despite the clumsiness of the
forgery, it was accepted as genuine by important church leaders in the
east and had great influence over the doctrinal disputes of the day.
Corinth
Upon leaving Athens, Paul traveled some fifty miles westward:
Acts 18:1. After these things Paul departed from Athens, and
came to Corinth.
Corinth is situated on the narrow peninsula connecting the Pelopon-
nesus (the southernmost peninsula of Greece) with the remainder of
the land. Because of this, it has access to the sea on the east and the
west and was a great trading center. It was prosperous and wealthy
in the days of Greek greatness but it was a trading rival of Athens and
therefore fought on the Spartan side in the Peloponnesian War.
After 338 B.C., Corinth was dominated by a Macedonian garrison
1066
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
but it remained prosperous. Indeed, by the time Macedonia was
defeated by Rome, and the latter power succeeded to the rule of
Greece, Corinth was the most prosperous city on the Greek mainland.
In 149 B.C., however, Macedonia, taking advantage of Roman military
preoccupation elsewhere, attempted a revolt. This was quickly crushed,
but Roman tempers were short and it seemed to them that the Greek
cities had encouraged Macedonia. Deliberately they decided to make
an example and sent an army against the richest of them, Corinth.
The city, terrified, hastily surrendered, but that did no good. The
Roman commander was out to teach the Greeks a lesson and he did.
In 146 B.C. the city was pillaged, its men killed, and its women and
children sold into slavery.
For exactly a century Corinth lay in devastated ruins until, in
46 b.c, Julius Caesar had it rebuilt. The new Corinth rose and was
flourishing again in Paul's time. It served, indeed, as the capital of the
Roman province of Achaea, which included Greece proper.
Corinth had other disasters to contend with in its later history,
but it survives to this day as a town of sixteen thousand.
Aquila
In Corinth, Paul remained for a year and a half, and there he
settled down to earn his living by means of his craft:
Acts 18:2. And [Paul] found a certain Jew named Aquila, born
in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because
that Claudius had commanded all jews to depart from Rome:)
and came unto them.
It is they who were the tentmakers, or weavers, referred to earlier in
this chapter (seepage 1019).
Apparently Paul arrived in Corinth shortly after Claudius, in a fit
of irritation at disorders involving Jews, ordered them all out of Rome.
This order, which only held in effect a few years, took place in aj>. 49
and this offers another peg on which to hang the chronology of Paul's
voyages.
ACTS 1067
Gdlio
The Corinthian Jews objected strenuously to Paul's activities but,
apparently, could do nothing against him under the government then
in power. They saw their opportunity, however, when a new governor
arrived to begin his term of office. The new governor, they hoped,
would sympathize with their point of view.
Acts 18:12. And when Gallio was the deputy of AchaUt, the
Jews . . . brought him [Paul] to the judgement seat . . .
Achaia or Achaea (the former is the Greek spelling, the latter the
Latin) is the region skirting the northern shore of the Peloponnesus.
During the great days of Greece it played only a very minor role, for
it was under the thumb of mighty Sparta, just to the south. After
the death of Alexander the Great, however, with Sparta long since
rendered powerless, the cities of Achaea began to combine for the
common defense and formed the "Achaean League." For over a cen-
tury, the Achaean League preserved a shred of Greek freedom.
It came to an end, however, in 146 b.c. when Corinth was de-
stroyed by the Roman forces. The last bit of Greek independence
vanished, but the memory of the Achaean League lingered in the
name the Romans gave their Greek province. It was the province of
Achaea, or Achaia.
As for the Roman who now came to Corinth to govern the province,
he was Junius Annaeus Gallio, though this was only his adopted
name, taken after he had been accepted by a well-to-do Roman
family. He had been born in Spain and his original name was Marcus
Annaeus Nova t us.
He was the older brother of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the most noted
Stoic philosopher among the Romans of the early empire, and the
tutor of the young man who later became the Emperor Nero.
Gallio's nephew was a young man named Lucan (Marcus Annaeus
Lucanus, to be precise) who, later, under Nero, became a poet of
considerable reputation.
It is known that Gallio became proconsul of the province of Achaea
in a.d. 52 and that fixes the date during which Paul was concluding
1068
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
his stay in Corinth. Gallio listened to the Jewish complaints against
Paul with distaste and impatience. To him, it was merely:
Acts 18:15. • • • a Question of words and names, and of your
law . . .
It was a tedious matter of alien semantics to him, in other words,
and he refused to involve himself in it. Paul was therefore safe.
The end of Gallio's life, by the way, was tragic. His younger brother,
Seneca the philosopher, and his nephew, Lucan the poet, were both
forced to commit suicide a dozen years later during the cruel and
tyrannical reign of Nero, simply because they had incurred the em-
peror's displeasure and the suspicion of involvement in a conspiracy
against him. (This was true in the case of Lucan, who turned state's
evidence against his fellow conspirators but was condemned anyway.)
Upon hearing this news, Gallio committed suicide too.
Ephesus
When Paul finally left Corinth, he took Aquila and Priscilla with
him and sailed eastward 250 miles, across the center of the Aegean Sea
to the Asia Minor coast:
Acts 18:19. And he came to Ephesus, and left them [Aquila and
Priscilla] there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and
reasoned with the Jews.
Ephesus was first settled by Greeks, according to tradition, in
1087 b.c, at a time when all of Greece was experiencing a "Dark Age."
A group of uncivilized Greek-speaking tribes, the Dorians, had entered
Greece a century before and had been ravaging and dominating the
land ever since. This was part of the same group of barbarian migra-
tions that flung the Peoples of the Sea against the nations bordering
the eastern Mediterranean. The colonization of Ephesus was carried
through by Greeks seeking escape from the misery of home.
Indeed, in that period (when the Israelites in Canaan were them-
selves undergoing similar suffering under Philistine domination) the
entire western coast of Asia Minor was colonized by the Greeks.
Ephesus and other cities nearby were colonized by men from Athens
ACTS 1069
and from other regions where the Ionian dialect of Greece was spoken.
For that reason, the region around Ephesus was called Ionia.
Under the mild rule of the Lydians in the sixth century B.C., Ionia
experienced an amazing cultural growth. It was there that philosophers
such as Thales first introduced the basic assumptions of modem science
and one of the great Ionian philosophers was Heraclitus of Ephesus
(see page 916).
All of Ionia gradually decayed after Persia conquered Lydia, par-
ticularly after 500 B.C., when a disastrous revolt of the Ionians against
the ruling empire was pitilessly crushed. Ephesus managed to cling to
its prosperity more than did the others, however, and, in the centuries
after Alexander the Great, it became the most important Greek city
in Asia Minor. The prosperity continued under Roman rule, which
began in 133 B.C., and Ephesus may not have been far behind Alexan-
dria and Antioch in population and wealth. It survived a sack by Sulla
in 84 B.C. and in 6 b.c. it became the capital of the province of Asia.
In Ephesus, Paul disputed with the Jews, but did not remain long.
He sailed to Gaesarea on the Judean coast:
Acts 18:22. And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up,
and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.
It is usually assumed that by "gone up, and saluted the church"
is meant a quick trip to Jerusalem. And thus Paul ended his second
missionary journey.
Apollos
It was not long after his return to Antioch that the restless and fiery
Paul, who could not seem to endure the settled life of a secure Chris-
tian community, left (perhaps in a.d. 54) on his third missionary
journey.
Acts 18:23. . . . after he had spent some time there [in Antioch],
he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia
in order . . .
Once again he was making the rounds of the churches he had
founded in the Asia Minor interior. But meanwhile someone else had
arrived in Ephesus, at the western rim of the peninsula:
1070
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
ACTS 1071
Acts 18:24. And a certain Jew named ApoUos, born at Alexandria,
an eloquent man . . . came to Ephesus.
Acts 18:25. . . . knowing only the baptism of John.
Even now, a quarter century after the death of John the Baptist and
of Jesus, there remained a sect that looked back to John the Baptist
as their teacher and inspiration, rather than to Jesus.
Nevertheless, since John had preached the imminent coming of a
Messiah, the Baptist's disciples seemed readier than other Jews to be
converted to Christianity. Some instruction from Aquila and Priscilla
(whom Paul had brought to Ephesus from Corinth) quickly brought
Apollos into the Christian fold, and he moved on to Corinth to labor
there.
Paul himself, in his travels through Asia Minor on this third journey,
reached Ephesus and encountered disciples of John the Baptist, who
readily submitted to baptism in the name of Jesus.
Paul remained in Ephesus for two to three years, till aj>. 57 perhaps,
and under his influence the Christian church there flourished greatly.
Indeed, as Jerusalem was the first Christian center, and Antioch the
second, so Ephesus became the third. Later Christian tradition elab-
orated the early history of the church at Ephesus. The apostle John
son of Zebedee was supposed to have spent his later life there and
written the fourth gospel (see page 959) . The Virgin Mary was sup-
posed to have gone there too, and also, Mary Magdalene, and the
apostles Andrew and Philip.
Diana of the Ephesians
The growth of the church at Ephesus was not entirely without
untoward incident. The most spectacular of these came about as the
result of the demagoguery of a silversmith:
Acts 19:24. . . . a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith,
which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto
the craftsmen;
Acts 19:25. Whom he called together with the workmen of like
occupation . . .
The reference to Diana is to a goddess to whom Ephesus, at least
in part, owed its relative immunity to the vicissitudes of history. It
1072
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
was a respected religious center and its conquerors tended to be in a
certain awe of it.
The religion centered about a fertility goddess of a type familiar in
Asia Minor, Syria, and Babylon. The goddess was much like the Ash-
taroth so denounced by the Old Testament Yahvists (see page I-232).
The rites were orgiastic, though undoubtedly intended, in all serious-
ness, to encourage the fertility of the soil.
The worship dated back to before the coming of the Greeks to that
part of the world and may have centered about the falling of a
meteorite originally. Thus, a city official is quoted as saying:
Acts 19:35. . . . what man is there that knoweth not how that
the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess
Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?
Meteorites, if seen to fall from the sky, are a natural object of
worship for primitive men, who know nothing of astronomy and see
them merely as objects hurled down by the sky-god.
If the meteorite was perhaps in the crude shape of a human being
(or something that migHt be imagined to be such a shape) the effect
would be all the more impressive. And, in the end, there would not be
lacking artisans to hew something that was closer to a recognized
form. In New Testament times the goddess worshipped by Ephesus
was usually shown as a woman closely draped from the waist down but
seeming naked from the waist up and bearing many breasts. These
breasts would seem to symbolize the overflowing fertility of the soil
which the goddess symbolizes.
The Greeks, finding themselves with this primitive fertility goddess,
had to identify her with some more familiar member of the Greek
pantheon and they chose Artemis, the goddess of the hunt. It was
a remarkably poor choice since the classical Artemis is a chaste and
virginal huntress; anything but a many-breasted Earth-mother.
Nevertheless, the choice struck and the many-breasted goddess be-
came "Artemis of the Ephesians" or, in the Roman equivalent, "Diana
of the Ephesians."
When Ephesus was under the control of Lydia, a temple was built
to Artemis of the Ephesians, under the generous sponsorship of the
rich king Croesus. It was called the "Artemision." This temple was
burnt down, accidentally, about 400 b.c, but it was quickly rebuilt
Then, one night in 356 b.c, the Artemision was burnt down again.
ACTS 1073
This time it was no accident, but was a case of deliberate arson. The
culprit was quickly seized and before execution for the crime of sacri-
lege was passed, he was asked what possible motive he could have
had for so senseless an act. He replied that he had done it in order
to make his name immortal. Immediately it was decreed that his
name be expunged from all records and that no one ever pronounce
it. In vainl His name (or some name that purports to be his) is
known. It is Herostratus and it is, indeed, immortal. At least it is still
remembered over two thousand years later.
Afterward, Greek historians were fond of repeating the story that
the night on which the Artemision was burnt down was the very
night on which Alexander the Great was born— though in view of the
lack of accurate records in those days, it seems doubtful that this
interesting coincidence can ever be verified.
Eventually the Artemision was rebuilt, this time under the direction
of, among others, an architect who had been in the employ of Alexan-
der the Great himself. The world of Macedonian monarchies was far
richer than the earlier world of Greek city-states had been, and the
temple was rebuilt on a much larger scale and with much more elabo-
rate ornamentation. Such was its splendor that it came to be con-
sidered one of the Seven Wonders of the World.
This Wonder was to endure for seven centuries and it was standing
when Paul was in Ephesus. Naturally, the magnificent temple made
Ephesus a tourist center and the silversmiths who made trinkets for
the tourist trade cleaned up. These silversmiths viewed with the ut-
most suspicion this Jewish missionary who was convincing more and
more men that the great Ephesian goddess was just an idle lump of
stone and that the silver trinkets were valueless.
The silversmiths were thrown into fury by the denunciations of
Demetrius and in no time at all there was a full-blown riot in the
streets:
Acts 19:28. And when they [the silversmiths] heard these say-
ings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana
of the Ephesians.
Acts 19:29. And the whole city was filled with confusion . . .
The city authorities, however, kept the situation in hand, and the
riot blew over without real damage.
1074
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
MUetus
Paul had been intending to visit the churches in Greece again and
after the Ephesian riots he left. Perhaps the fact that the church with-
stood those riots so well led him to feel that he could safely leave it for
a time. Or perhaps he felt that his own absence might prevent the
recurrence of more dangerous riots.
He spent several months, therefore, in Greece, then, perhaps in
aj>. 58, returned to Troas via Macedonia. Again there follows a "we"
passage as though Luke had once again joined the party in Troas.
Acts 20:13. • • • we wen * before to ship, and sailed unto Assos . . .
Acts 20:14. And when he [Paul] met with us at Assos, we took
him in, and came to Mitylene.
Acts 20:15. And we sailed thence, and came the next day over
against Chios; and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried
at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus.
Assos was a town on the southern shore of the Troas peninsula,
about twenty miles south of Alexandria Troas. The only incident of
note in its history is the fact that Aristotle the philosopher spent three
years there studying natural history.
Paul's companions rounded the Troas peninsula by sea, while Paul
himself traveled to Assos overland. Paul then boarded the ship and all
traveled southward along the Asia Minor west coast, passing three
large islands: Lesbos, Chios, and Samos.
Lesbos, the largest of the three (623 square miles) had, as its
capital city, Mitylene, located on its eastern shore. The period of
Lesbos' greatest prosperity was about 600 b.c. It was then politically
strong and contributed great names to music and literature, the great-
est being that of the poetess Sappho, whose lyrically phrased praise
of girls has given us "Lesbianism" as a word to signify female homo-
sexuality.
Chios and Samos (the former 355 square miles in area, the latter
180) were each firm allies of Athens during the Golden Age of the
latter city. Earlier than that, Samos had had a period of power of its
own, when its fleet under its pirate-ruler, Polycrates, was the strongest
in the eastern Mediterranean. Two great philosophers, Pythagoras and
ACTS 1075
Epicurus, were Samians by birth. All three islands are now part of
the modern kingdom of Greece.
The party, on leaving Samos, remained at Trogyllium overnight;
that being the promontory on the Asia Minor coast just south of the
eastern edge of Samos. Then they went on to Miletus.
Miletus is on the Asia Minor mainland, about thirty miles south
of Ephesus. From 600 to 500 b.c. it was the foremost city of the Greek
world. Modem science began in Miletus, for Thales and his pupils,
Anaximander and Anaximenes, were natives of that city. Its glories
came to an end soon after 500 b.c, after it had led a furious revolt
against the Persian Empire. Despite help from Athens (which led to
the Persian invasion of Greece) the revolt was crushed, and Miletus
as the ringleader was punished with particular severity. It survived,
but leadership among the cities of the Asia Minor coast passed to
Ephesus.
Miletus always had to fight to keep its harbor open against the
tendencies to silt up. In the later centuries of the Roman Empire,
the fight was gradually lost. Miletus has been nothing but deserted
ruins for many centuries and the same fate, for that matter, has be-
fallen Ephesus, Assos, and Troas.
In Miletus, Paul found himself close to Ephesus but he had no in-
tention of stopping there lest church affairs delay him and keep him
from his determination to spend Pentecost in Jerusalem. (Some thirty
years had now passed since that first Pentecost.)
He therefore sent for the Ephesian elders and contented himself
with giving a farewell address, urging them to selfless labors for the
church and concluding with a well-known passage:
Acts 20:35. • • • remember the words of the Lord ]esus, how he
said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
As it happens, though, this saying did not come to be recorded in
any of the gospels.
Rhodes
The journey southward then continued:
Acts 21:1. . . . we came with a straight course unto Coos, and
the day following unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara.
1076
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Coos, or (better) Cos, is a fourth island off the Asia Minor coast and
is about forty miles south of Samos. It is 111 square miles in area
and was the home of the most important medical school of ancient
times. Hippocrates, the "father of medicine," was bom in Cos about
460 B.C., while Apelles, the greatest of the painters of antiquity, was
bom there a century later.
Rhodes, still another island off the west coast of Asia Minor (and
the southernmost), is sixty miles southeast of Cos. Rhodes is a con-
siderably larger island, with an area of 545 square miles. The city of
Rhodes, on the northeastern tip of the island, was founded in 408 B.C.
After the time of Alexander the Great, Rhodes experienced a period
of great prosperity that lasted for a century and a half. In 305-304 B.o,
it withstood a long and terrible siege by Demetrius, the son of one of
Alexander's generals. In celebration afterward, it erected the most fa-
mous great statue of the Greek world, a huge carving of the Sungod.
This stood in the harbor, looking out to sea, but it did not, as later
legend had it, bestride the harbor, with ships passing between its
legs. This statue, the Colossus of Rhodes, was considered one of the
Seven Wonders of the World. It stood for less than a century, how-
ever, for about 225 B.C. it was overthrown by an earthquake and was
never re-erected.
In modern times, Rhodes was Turkish for centuries but was taken
by Italy in 1912 and held for a generation. In 1945, after World Wat
II, it and nearby islands were ceded by Italy to Greece.
From Rhodes, Paul and his party went to Patara, a town on the
southwestern shore of Asia Minor, fifty miles east of Rhodes. It was
the chief seaport of Lycia, a small district of Asia Minor which had
managed to retain its nominal independence long after surrounding
regions had been annexed to the Roman Empire.
It was not until ajd. 43— about fifteen years before Paul touched
down in Patara— that the Emperor Claudius annexed it to the empire
and made it part of Pamphylia.
Felix
Paul took another ship at Patara, which carried him to Tyre, and
from there he made his way to Jerusalem, stopping at Caesarea to
visit Philip the evangelist ( see page l(X)8).
acts I*-'?''
In Jerusalem, Paul met with James and other leaders of the church.
These, despite the concessions they had made at the Council of
Jerusalem a decade earlier, were troubled at reports of the mass con-
version of pagans without circumcision and without the requirement
of obedience to the Mosaic Law. Even if the Jerusalem leaders were
wilHng to accept this as a matter of practical politics, there were many
among the congregation who were not willing at all. The leaders
explained to Paul:
Acts 21:20. . . . Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews
there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Acts 21:21. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest
all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses . . .
Actually, it might be argued that Paul only invited Gentiles to be-
come Christians without the Law, while urging Jews to keep the Law,
but it could also be argued that if some Christians were free of the Law,
other Christians could scarcely be kept to it. James might well have
feared that the Christian community at Jerusalem, with their fervent
Jewish heritage, on hearing that the Pauline version of Christianity
was non-Jewish and even anti-Jewish, might disintegrate, and Chris-
tianity would become a Gentile religion altogether. (And this is ex-
actly what did happen in the end.)
Furthermore, the Christian community was working out a record of
coexistence with the non-Christian Jews. At least there is no record
of James being in trouble with the Jewish authorities after the death
of Herod Agrippa I. By proving themselves strict Jews in terms of
ritual, the Christians of Jerusalem could perhaps look forward to, first,
toleration by the Jews, then the acceptance of Jesus as a prophet at
least, and eventually the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.
If Christianity came to seem anti-Jewish all such hopes must be
gone and the Christians of Jerusalem might even be persecuted, driven
out, or hunted down. Paul's very presence in Jerusalem could give
rise to this danger. Reports of his missionary activity must have made
him notorious as a violator of the Law, and he might be persecuted
for this rather than for being a Christian, but the consequences might
tum out to be against Christians generally.
James therefore urged Paul to go through an elaborate ritual of
purification in the Temple in order to demonstrate his own adherence
to the Law. Paul obeyed, but it did not help. He was recognized in
1078
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIB LB
the Temple by some Jews from Asia who might have encountered him
on his missionary journeys, and who might therefore know of his work.
The cry was immediately raised:
Acts 21 .-28. . . . Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth
all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place
[the Temple] . . .
Paul was even accused of bringing Gentfles into the Temple and
defiling it in that manner. (There were indeed Gentiles in Paul's
entourage, but he did not bring them into the Temple.)
For a time it seemed that Paul might be lynched, but a Roman
captain and his troop, hearing of the disorders, hurried to the spot and
Paul was taken into protective custody. (The Roman captain's name
is later given as Claudius Lysias.)
With the captain's permission, Paul addressed the crowd in Aramaic
(after speaking to the captain in Greek), recounting the details of his
conversion. The audience grew unruly, however, when Paul began to
talk about his work among the Gentiles.
The captain, puzzled by all this, decided to get down to basics
by questioning Paul under torture, a routine procedure in those days.
Paul, however, saved himself from this by announcing his Roman
citizenship ( see page 1017).
Paul next faced the Jewish council and escaped from their hands by
announcing himself to be a Pharisee. He maintained that he was being
persecuted for his belief in the doctrine of resurrection— a cardinal
point in Pharisaic doctrine and one that was bitterly opposed by the
Sadducees.
To be sure, Paul's belief in resurrection applied specifically to that
of Jesus after the crucifixion, something the Pharisees did not accept
However, in the heat of debate, the magic word "resurrection" was
enough to cause the Pharisees in the council to turn upon the Sad-
ducees and opt for Paul's innocence.
Nevertheless, Paul's life remained in danger and somehow Acts does
not mention any part played by the Christians in Jerusalem generally
in all this. Perhaps they were too few in number to make their in-
fluence felt or to do anything but make Paul's position worse if they
tried. It is tempting, however, to wonder if perhaps the Jerusalem
Christians might not have been just a little pleased at Paul's troubles.
They might well have considered him a perverter of Christian doctrine
and his troubles might have been viewed as a judgment upon him.
acts 1079
Salvation for Paul came from the Roman captain, Claudius Lysias,
who had apparently grown friendly with his prisoner. He decided to
get Paul out of Jerusalem and assure his physical safety by sending him
to Caesarea to be tried, legally, by the Roman authorities and pro-
vided an escort —
Acts 23:24. . . . that they may . . . bring him [Paul] safe unto
Felix the governor.
After the death of Herod Agrippa I, Judea was placed under proc-
urators once more, and each had to deal constantly with bandit leaders
claiming to be messiahs and leading rebellions against the authorities.
Indeed, when Claudius Lysias had first taken Paul, he thought his
prisoner to be one of these rebels; one who happened to be a Jew from
Egypt.
Acts 21:37 . . . the chief captain . . . said, Canst thou speak
Greek?
Acts 21:38. Art not thou that Egyptian, which . . . madest an
uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that
were murderers?
The first procurator to follow Herod Agrippa I was Cuspius Fad us,
and he was succeeded by Tiberius Alexander, a Jewish apostate who
was supposed to have been a nephew of Philo Judaeus himself (see
page 301). In a.d. 48, about the time of the Council of Jerusalem,
Ventidius Cumanus became procurator and governed for four years,
through a constant haze of riots and insurrections. In a.d. 52 he was
replaced by Antonius Felix, under whom the situation grew steadily
worse.
Felix was a freedman (someone who had been bom a slave but had
been freed) and it was quite unusual for a freedman to become a
royal governor. However, under Claudius, freedmen had been given im-
portant civil service posts, and one of the most important of these func-
tionaries was Pallas.
This Pallas was not only influential with Claudius, but was also
friendly with Claudius' fourth and last wife, Agrippina, who was in-
triguing for the succession to go to her son, Nero. Felix was the brother
of Pallas and it is not surprising therefore that, although a freedman,
he should be made procurator of Judea.
In aj). 54 Agrippina finally won her victory. According to the story,
1080
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
she poisoned Claudius and her son, Nero, succeeded to the throne as
the fifth Roman Emperor— a reign most fateful to both Jews and Chris-
tians.
Antipatris
Paul was taken out of Jerusalem, which he was never to see again:
Acts 23:31. Then the soldiers . . . took Paul and brought him
by night to Antipatris.
Antipatris, which is roughly halfway between Jerusalem and Caesarea,
is thought to have been built on the site of ancient Aphek, where the
Israelite army had been shattered by the Philistines in the time of the
high priest Eli (see page I-271).
The city had been built anew by Herod the Great and it had been
named Antipatris after the king's father, Antipater the Idumean.
Drusilla
Felix sat in judgment. The Jewish authorities accused Paul of stirring
up dissension and profaning the Temple. Paul maintained that he
was a Pharisee and again insisted he was being persecuted merely for
believing in the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection.
Felix listened with considerable interest. He was no Claudius Lysias,
and was apparently acquainted with Jewish doctrine, perhaps through
his wife.
Acts 24:24. . . . Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a
Jewess, . . . [and] sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the
faith in Christ.
Drusilla was the youngest of the three daughters of Herod Agrippa I,
and was twenty-one years old at this time. She had divorced her previous
husband under Felix's pressure and had been forced to marry this
Roman Gentile in defiance of Jewish law. Felix lost interest in Chris-
tian doctrines, however, when Paul discoursed on its ethical content:
Acts 24:25. And as he [Paul] reasoned of righteousness, temper-
ance, and judgement to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go
thy way . . .
ACTS 1081
Felix kept Paul imprisoned for two years, more to prevent disorders
in Jerusalem, perhaps, than out of any conviction of Paul's guilt. The
terms of the imprisonment were not harsh. At the end of the two
years, Pallas, the procurator's brother, had fallen from favor at the court
of Nero, and Felix was relieved of his duties. Since this took place,
most likely, in a.d. 61, we can place the time of Paul's visit to Jerusalem,
his seizure, and his trial at Caesarea, in a.d. 59.
Festua
A new procurator took office:
Acts 24:27. . . . after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix'
room . . .
The case of Paul was reopened before this new procurator, whose
chief aim was to prevent unnecessary trouble with the increasingly
troublesome people of the province. He therefore offered to have the
apostle tried in Jerusalem. In order to quiet Paul's fears that such a
trial might be an unfair one, the procurator offered to preside over it
himself.
Paul did not think that Festus would, merely by his presence, insure
a fair trial. Indeed, he probably suspected that Festus would be suc-
cessfully pressured into a conviction, as had been the case with Pon-
tius Pilate thirty-two years before.
Paul, therefore, appealed to the emperor, which was his right as a
Roman citizen, and thus made it impossible for the procurator to do
anything but send him to Rome.
Herod Agrippa II
Meanwhile, members of the house of Herod were on hand:
Acts 25:13. And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came
unto Caesarea to salute Festus.
The Agrippa referred to here is Herod Agrippa II, the only son of
Herod Agrippa I. He was bom about a.d. 27, shortly before the
crucifixion of Jesus. The young prince was brought up in Rome, where
1082
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Cklris
Mlditerranean
-5e/\
ABILENE
. KINGDOM OF:
HfROOAamPRA
*r
ft
I T U RA E A
^...^'.Gisfhib
, . l '/^GALILEE
Jwmaisf i Ofamim.
/ Septjans m
. v., r\* ,\ .,
, PANIAS
LAKE >
itMC-cHowns
GAULANITJS
>ffiJCJ / BATANA
U > BATANA
Ascahiiji
AUTOh
k i EmmtUS t > { f
"i^" 'Jmtsaltm-**
. Bmmaus
EtaiVv *
' ^D^EA^.
v.
GtiiSfflhtD/ctpolls
0 MW« 25
The Kingdom of Herod Agrippa II
ACTS 11)83
his father was at that time such a favorite with the imperial family.
Herod Agrippa was a boy of ten when his father began to rule over
sections of Judea, and he was only seventeen when his father died. He
was too young for Claudius to be willing to entrust him with the very
difficult task of ruling all of Judea and the surrounding territory.
Agrippa's uncle, a younger brother of Herod Agrippa I, was still
ruling a small section of land north of Galilee, having been made king
there by Claudius in ajj. 41. The area was called Chalcis and Agrippa's
uncle was therefore known as Herod of Chalcis.
Herod of Chalcis died in a.d. 48 and a year later Herod Agrippa II
was appointed king in his place. In aj>. 53 Nero made him king, in
addition, over sections of Galilee and Trans-Jordanian territories. He
was the last of the Herodian line to rule anywhere in Jewish ter-
ritories.
Now, in aj>. 61, Herod Agrippa II was coming to Caesarea from
his capital, Tiberias, to convey formal greetings to Festus.
Five years later, he was to be in Jerusalem, when the disorders and
fury of the Zealots were mounting toward the suicidal rebellion.
Herod Agrippa II counseled patience and moderation but he was (and
with justification) scorned as a Roman puppet, and ignored. In the
rebellion, he sided with the Romans. In consequence he was able to
retire to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem and to live out the
remainder of his life in comfort.
About aj>. 100 Herod Agrippa II, the great-great-grandson of Antip-
ater the Idumean, and the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
grandson of Mattathias, the priest who had sparked the Maccabean
rebellion, died. He was the last member of either family to be of any
consequence at all.
Bemice, or Berenice, was his sister, the oldest of the three girls bom
to Herod Agrippa I. (Her youngest sister, Drusilla, had been married to
Felix, the previous procurator.) Berenice had been married several
times, the first time to her uncle, Herod of Chalcis. She left her
third husband, a prince who ruled in Cilicia, to live with her brother
at Tiberias. Gossip implied an incestuous relationship, but gossip then,
as now, invariably placed the most scandalous possible interpretation
on any event
She too took the Roman side in the rebellion. In fact, she became
the mistress of Titus, the young Roman general who finally captured
and destroyed Jerusalem in aj>. 70. She went to Rome, along with
1084
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Titus and her brother, and remained there the rest of her life. She
did not, however, remain Titus' mistress. The Romans were quite anti-
Jewish in sentiment at this time and Titus was forced to put her
aside. The year of her death is not known.
Paul now had still another hearing before Festus and Agrippa.
His defense, couched entirely in Jewish terms, touched Agrippa, who
said to Paul:
Acts 26:28. . . . AZmost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
It was agreed that Paul had done nothing deserving of condemna-
tion, but since he had appealed to the emperor, he would have to be
allowed to go to Rome.
Myra
Under the guard of a centurion, Paul set sail for Rome, in what
amounted to a fourth missionary voyage. Luke, if he is taken to be
the author of Acts, was apparently one of the company:
Acts 27:5. . . . when we had sailed over the sea of Cilicia and
Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city of Lycia.
Myra was thirty miles east of Patara, the port at which Paul had
disembarked on his way to Jerusalem three years before. It was an im-
portant and populous city at the time and one of the chief towns of
Lycia, but there is little but ruins left today. Paul's party took another
ship and left, and Paul was never to see Asia Minor again.
Crete
And now the journey was beset by bad weather:
Acts 27:7. . . .we had . . . scarce . . . come over against Cnidus,
the wind not suffering us, we sailed under Crete, over against Sal-
mone;
Acts 27:8 And . . . came unto . . . The fair havens; nigh where-
unto was the city of Lasea.
ACTS 1085
1086
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Cnidus (or Cnidos) is a long promontory on the southwest coast of
Asia Minor that juts out just south of the eastern edge of the island of
Cos (see page 1076). The city of Cnidus was at the tip of the promon-
tory. It played no great role in Greek history, but one of the most
famous mathematicians and astronomers of antiquity, Eudoxus, was
bom there.
Contrary winds did not allow a landing on Cnidus but drove them
toward Crete, a hundred twenty miles toward the southwest. This
is one of the large islands of the Mediterranean, 3200 square miles in
area. It is about 160 miles long from east to west, but only 20 miles,
on the average, from north to south.
In very ancient times— long before the time of Abraham, even-
Crete was the seat of a high civilization. By 1400 B.C., while the Jews
were in Egyptian slavery, Crete was taken by raiders from the Greek
mainland and began a slow decline. It could still play an important
role in the Trojan War about 1200 B.C., but after that it virtually
vanishes from historic annals. All during the centuries in which the
Greek cities were great, the Cretan cities were sunk in mutual warfare
and banditry. It was a haunt of pirates at various periods when war-
fare preoccupied other powers and permitted piracy to flourish. In 67
B.C., Rome put an end to that by annexing it.
Paul's ship was driven southward around Cape Salmone at the north-
eastern tip of the island and came to rest in a harbor midway along
the southern shore.
This harbor, Fair Havens, despite its name, was not suitable for any
long stay. The captain of the ship therefore tried to make for a second
and better harbor, some fifty miles westward along Crete's southern
shore. A storm struck and beat the ship wildly along:
Acts 27:16. . . . running under a certain island which is called
Clauda . . .
This island (called Gavdas nowadays) is a small bit of land some
twenty-five miles south of the west end of Crete.
Melita
After most difficult times, the ship and its company was cast ashore
on an island:
ACTS 1087
Acts 28:1. And when they were escaped, then they knew that the
island was called Melita.
Melita is the island now known as Malta, about ninety-five square
miles in area and nearly five hundred miles west of Crete. The island
was first colonized by Phoenicians and, in the sixth century B.C., came
under the control of Carthage, the greatest of all Phoenician colonies.
In 218 b.c., at the very start of the second war between Rome and
Carthage, Rome took over control of Malta and it remained part of
the Roman realm thereafter.
The bay which the ship was supposed to have entered, near the
northern tip of the island, is known as Saint Paul's Bay to this day.
Syracuse
Paul and his party stayed in Malta for three months, during the
winter of aj>. 61-62. At the end of that time they left in a ship from
Alexandria which had been wintering there.
Acts 28:12. And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days.
Syracuse was the largest and most notable city on the island of Sicily,
which is, itself, not mentioned by name in the Bible. Sicily is the
largest island in the Mediterranean, and is just about ten thousand
square miles in area. It is about fifty miles north of Malta, and its north-
em tip is separated from the "toe" of the Italian peninsula by a strait
that is, in spots, only two miles wide.
In the eighth century b.c. the eastern portion of Sicily was colonized
by Greeks and the western portion by Carthaginians. For five hundred
years, Greeks and Carthaginians fought each other on the island,
without either being able to drive the other completely out.
It was only in 264 b.c. that the Romans finally reached the island.
Their intrusion was the occasion of the first of three wars between
Rome and Carthage. At the end of that war, Carthage was finally
forced to abandon the island altogether.
The city of Syracuse on the east-central shore of Sicily was the oldest
Greek settlement on the island. It was founded, according to tradition,
in 734 b.c. (when Ahaz sat on the throne of Judah, and when the
Kingdom of Israel had only a dozen years to live).
1088
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Syracuse took the lead in fighting the Carthaginians and, on several
occasions, readied great heights of power. In 415 B.C., Syracuse had
to face the unprovoked attack of a great Athenian fleet. That fleet
was completely destroyed and this, more than anything else, helped
break Athenian power and lead to the ultimate victory of Sparta over
Athens.
In 390 B.C., under Dionysius I, Syracuse was at its peak. It drove
Carthage from all but the westernmost tip of the island, and it took
over the southern shores of mainland Italy as well. After Dionysius,
however, there was a decline and the Carthaginians recovered.
When Rome took over the island after the first war with Carthage,
Syracuse was left independent under its king, Hiero II. During his long
reign of over half a century, Syracuse was more prosperous than ever,
even though it was a Roman puppet. The greatest scientist of antiquity,
Archimedes, lived there then.
On the occasion of the second war between Rome and Carthage,
it seemed at first that Rome would lose. Syracuse hastily switched to
the Carthaginian side and Rome sent out a fleet to occupy it. For
three years, Syracuse fought desperately with the help of Archimedes'
war weapons. In the end, however, in 212 B.C., Syracuse was taken
and Archimedes died during the sack that followed.
After that Syracuse and all the rest of Sicily remained securely Roman,
though the island was shaken by slave rebellions now and then.
Rhegium
Paul's party sailed north from Syracuse:
Acts 28:13. And from thence we . . . came to Rhegium: and . . .
the next day to Puteoli . . .
At the time that the Greeks were colonizing Sicily, they were also
settling along the shores of the southern portion of Italy. On the
tip of the "toe" of Italy, just across from Sicily, for instance, they
founded the town of Rhegion (or Rhegium, in the Latin spelling) in
720 B.C., according to tradition.
It was ruled by Dionysius I when Syracuse was at the height of its
power. Beginning in 280 B.C. the Romans took over the Greek cities
in southern Italy one by one. Rhegium was the last to fall, becoming
ACTS 1089
Roman in 270 b.c. Throughout the Roman period, however, Rhegium
retained its Greek language and culture and retained its self-govern-
ment
From Rhegium, Paul's party went to Puteoli, a city on Italy's south-
western shore, somewhat north of modem Naples. It was founded by
the Greeks in 512 b.c. and taken over by the Romans in 215 b.c. It
was a large trading center.
Rome
And so, finally, Paul came to Rome:
Acts 28:16. And ... we came to Rome . . .
In aj). 62, when Paul arrived in Rome, that city was great and
prosperous, the most important city in the world. Nero was just about
at the midpoint of his reign, and while he was pleasure-loving, waste-
ful, and autocratic, the city and the empire continued to be well gov-
erned in general.
The Book of Acts says little about the progress of Paul's appeal to the
emperor. It records only that he attempted to convert the Jews of
Rome to his way of thinking and failed again. After two years of
house imprisonment he was freed and the last verse of the book records
that he was:
Acts 28:31. Preaching the kingdom of God . . . with all con-
fidence, no man forbidding him.
That was aj>. 64.
It is curious that the book ends there, since there was to follow that
very year a terrible persecution of the Christians and since there is
6ome evidence that Paul may have set out on his travels even further
west. What's more, to carry the story only three years further would
have brought it to the reputed year of Paul's death, a.d. 67.
One possibility is that Acts was written in aj>. 64, but this is pretty
well discounted. The year of authorship is much more likely to have
been something like a x. 80. A second possibility is that Luke died before
he had a chance to complete the book.
Most likely, though, the point chosen for the ending of Acts is
deliberate. It represents a high spot
1090 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Thirty-eight years had passed since the crucifixion of Jesus; thirty-
three years, perhaps, since Paul's conversion. When Paul began his
career, the Christian fellowship consisted of a small group of disciples
gathered in Jerusalem, a group in danger of being wiped out by the
opposition of the Jewish authorities.
When Paul ended his career, strong, well-organized, and vigorously
proselytizing churches dotted Cyprus, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and
Greece, and there were Christians even in Rome.
Very much of all this had been accomplished by one remarkable
man— he who had been bom Saul of Tarsus and who had become Saint
Paul. Luke, his friend and physician, may well have wanted to end his
biography of Paul at that moment when, having accomplished all this,
he was resting secure in Rome, preaching as he wished and "no man for-
bidding him."
The darkness was soon to close in again, but Luke chose to leave
Paul at this sunlit peak.
10. ROMANS
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS * ROME * SPAIN * CIRCUMCISION • PRISCTLLA
AND AQUTLA ' RUFUS * JASON • TERTTOS * CAIUS AND ERASTUS
The Epistle to the Romans
Following the Book of Acts in the New Testament are twenty-one
letters sent by various apostles to Christians generally, or to various
churches or individuals. The majority of these, as many as fourteen
according to some traditions, were written by Paul. These letters are
referred to as "epistles" (from a Greek word meaning "to send to").
The word is closely related to "apostle" (who is "sent away"). The
relationship is the same as that of "missive" to "missionary."
The various epistles include the earliest writings in the New Testa-
ment. Some of them may have been written as early as ajd. 50, almost
twenty years before even the Erst of the gospels we now possess reached
its present form, and fifty years, perhaps, before the fourth gospel
was written.
The Pauline epistles do not appear in the Bible in chronological
order. They seem, rather, to be placed in order of length, with the
longest first.
The Erst and longest epistle is listed in the King James Version as
"The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans" but it can be called
simply "Romans." Partly because of its length, it contains the most
complete exposition of Paul's religious thinking, which is a second
reason for placing it first. Then, too, since it is addressed to the
Christians of the empire's capital and largest city, the matter of prestige
might also have influenced the placing of the epistle.
The letter is not dated in the modern fashion or, for that matter,
in any formal fashion at all (nor is any other epistle) . We must there-
fore seek its date (and those of the others) through indirect hints.
1
092
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
Toward the end of the epistle, for instance, Paul tells the business that
currently engages him:
Romans 15:25. But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto
the saints.
Romans 15:26. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia
to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at
Jerusalem.
This, apparently, is just the situation as it was described in the
twentieth chapter of Acts:
Acts 20:2. . . . he [Paul] came into Greece,
Acts 20:3. And . . . purposed to return through Macedonia.
Acts 20:6. And . . . sailed away from Philippi . . .
Acts 20:16. . . . [and] hasted . . . to be at Jerusalem the day of
Pentecost.
ROMANS
1093
Paul was anxious, presumably, to bring the contributions sent by
the relatively wealthy churches of Greece and Macedonia to the beset
Christians of the mother church in Jerusalem.
This was at the end of Paul's third missionary voyage and if the
letter were written while he was still getting ready to make the trip to
Jerusalem, it should have been written in 58.
One guess is that at the time of writing, Paul was completing his
stay at Corinth where there was a flourishing church which he had
established in the course of his second journey. Thus, at the end of
Romans, Paul says:
Romans 16:1. I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a
servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.
Apparently Phebe is the bearer of the letter and this is to serve as her
introduction to the Christian leaders in Rome. (She is mentioned as
Paul's sister only in a figurative sense, of course.)
Cenchrea is a suburb of Corinth, five miles east of the city proper, on
the eastern shore of the isthmus. Presumably, if Phebe is a native of
Cenchrea, Paul is himself in the vicinity and, therefore, very likely
at Corinth.
However, the sixteenth (and last) chapter of Romans is only ques-
tionably part of the original epistle and deductions based on its con-
tents are therefore shaky ones.
Rome
The elaborate address with which Romans starts gives the name
of the sender and those who are to receive it:
Romans 1:1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an
apostle . . .
• • • •
Romans 1:7. To all that be in Rome . . . called to be saints . . .
At the time the letter was written, Paul had never been to Rome,
yet obviously Christianity had reached the city without him. No specific
missionary activity on the part of any individual is described in the
Bible as having carried the gospel to Rome, but that poses no problem.
1094
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
There were Jews all over the empire, and there was definitely a colony
of them in Rome. Jews from all over the empire, including the city of
Rome, traveled to Jerusalem to be present at the Temple during the
great feasts, whenever possible, and some of them undoubtedly brought
back with them the new doctrines.
Spain
To be sure, Paul intended to visit Rome. Indeed, he hoped to
carry the gospel throughout the empire and expressed that hope by
projecting a visit to Spain. Jerusalem was in the empire's far east and
to plan a visit to Spain in the empire's far west would be to state an
intention of traveling throughout the empire:
Romans 15:24. Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will
come to you [the Romans] . . .
This, and another mention four verses later, is the only place in the
Bible where Spain is directly referred to.
To be sure, there was the city of Tartessus, located on the Spanish
coast beyond the Strait of Gibraltar (then called the Pillars of Her-
cules) near the site of modern Cadiz. It was a prosperous trading
center, usually identified with the Tarshish mentioned in the Old
Testament. King Solomon traded with it (see page I-332) and it is re-
ferred to in the Book of 1 Kings as an example of the worldwide spread
of his power.
Tartessus, or Tarshish, became proverbial as a land of "end of the
world." After all, it was twenty-five hundred miles west of Jerusalem,
and in Biblical times such a distance was almost the equivalent, in
modern terms, of a trip to the Moon. Thus, when Jonah decided to
run away from God rather than undertake the dangerous task of preach-
ing in Ninevah (see page I-646) he decided to flee as far as possible;
to the end of the Earth, in fact.
Jonah 1:3. . . . Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the
presence of the Lord . . .
Tarshish, however, is but very dimly known to us. Spain enters
the full light of history only in the sixth century B.C.— at about the
time the Jews were being carried oE to Babylon.
ROMANS 1095
In that century, both Greeks and Carthaginians were colonizing
the Spanish coast and establishing towns. In 480 B.C., Tartessus
(Tarshish) was destroyed by the Carthaginians.
After the first war with Rome, Carthage, which had been defeated
and driven out of Sicily, turned her attention westward. In 237 B.C.
she established her rule over a large section of southeastern Spain.
That land was the base of tht capable Carthaginian, Hamilcar, whose
son, Hannibal, was one of the greatest generals of all time.
Hannibal forced a second war on Rome and nearly defeated her, but
Rome endured and by 201 B.C. Carthage was utterly crushed. Rome
took over the Carthaginian dominion in Spain, but the takeover was
not a peaceful one and chronic warfare against the natives occupied
Roman forces for the better part of a century. Indeed, even when
Augustus founded the Roman Empire, there were still sections of
northern Spain that maintained a stubborn independence of Rome. It
was not until 19 B.C. that every bit of the Spanish peninsula could be
considered securely Roman.
Paul did not visit Rome as soon as he planned, however, for the trip
to Jerusalem which he was ready to undertake at the time of Romans,
ended in his imprisonment by Felix (see page 1079) . It was not until
five years after Romans that Paul finally came to Rome and then it was
only as a prisoner appealing his case to the emperor.
Whether Paul then went on to Spain is not known. There is a
reference in an early writing, dating back to about 95, that Paul reached
the "limits of the west," presumably Spain, but such evidence is weak.
Circumcision
Paul deals in Romans with the problem which was paramount
in the first decades after Jesus' crucifixion— whether Gentiles converted
to Christianity had to be circumcised and observe all the ritual of the
Law.
Paul's attitude toward circumcision and the Law was like Jeremiah's
attitude toward the Temple (see page I-562). Circumcision, in Paul's
view, could not be made use of as a magic talisman to bring automatic
salvation to people who were sinful. Nor, by extension, could the
absence of circumcision and the Law be considered as losing salvation
for people who are otherwise righteous:
10%
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Romans 2:25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the
law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made
uncircumcision.
Romans 2:26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteous-
ness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circum-
cision.
• * ■ •
Romans 2:29. .. . he is a few, which is one inwardly; and
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the
letter . . .
Furthermore, Paul differentiates between the ritualistic aspects of the
Law and its ethical aspects. Even if the Christian is freed from cir-
cumcision and other time-honored ritual, he is not freed from its ethics.
The name of Christian is not an automatic shield against unrighteous-
ness either:
Romans 6:15. . . . shall we sin, because we are not under the law,
but under grace? God forbid.
Paul also makes a plea for tolerance.
In most of the churches established in the east, the converted Jews
made up the majority at first and they accepted with difficulty, if at all,
those converted Gentiles who would not be circumcised. Paul's weight
was placed firmly on the side of the Gentile in those cases.
In Rome, however, the Gentile group may well have been the
stronger almost from the first. The Emperor Claudius had expelled the
Jews from Rome for a brief period about seven years or so before Ro-
mans was written. The Christian community in Rome would have
had to get along with its Gentile members only. When the Jews
returned, those among them who were Christians may have found
themselves outsiders in the Church, opposed by those who had had
nothing to do with the ritual of the Law and did not want the matter
brought up.
Paul, in considering this situation, does not forget he himself is
Jewish:
Romans 11:1. J say then, Hath God cast away his people? God
forbid, For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the
tribe of Benjamin.
ROMANS 1097
He argues that Jews will be converted; that if they show resistance
to Christianity at the first, it is part of God's plan to make it easier for
Gentiles to be converted. And he seems to plead with the Gentile
Christians of Rome to tolerate the Christians of Jewish origin who are
scrupulous with respect to such ritualistic matters as the dietary laws:
Romans 14:13. Let us not therefore judge one another any
more . . .
Romans 14:14. 1 know . . . that there is nothing unclean of
itself; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it
is unclean.
Priscilla and Aquila
The last chapter of Romans is very largely a list of names. There is
Phebe, who apparently is the bearer of the letter, and then there is
mention of over two dozen men and women to whom Paul sends
greetings.
It seems unlikely that Paul would know a great many people by
name in Rome, a city he had never visited, containing a fellowship
with whom he had never dealt directly. There is some suggestion,
therefore, that since Romans dealt with matters of interest and im-
portance to Christians generally, and not merely to those of Rome,
that copies of it may have been made for use by other churches. It
may be, then, that the final chapter of greetings was attached to such
a copy rather than to the original letter that made its way to Rome.
It is Ephesians, perhaps, rather than Romans who are being greeted,
as might appear from the first to be greeted:
Romans 16:3. Great Priscilla and Aquila . . .
Romans 16:4. Who have for my life laid down their own necks . . .
Paul had brought Priscilla and Aquila from Corinth to Ephesus at
the conclusion of his second missionary voyage (see page 1068) and
had left them there when he returned to Antioch. When Paul came
again to Ephesus in the course of his third missionary journey, Priscilla
and Aquila were still there, apparently, for it was during his stay in
Ephesus at this time that he wrote epistles to the church at Corinth,
and he mentions them there as sending their greetings along with his:
1098
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
i Corinthians 16:19. The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and
Priscilla salute you . . .
The reference in Romans to Priscilla and Aquila risking their life
for Paul may refer to the occasion of the riot of the silversmiths
(see page 1073) . There is no mention of a specific life-saving incident
in Acts, but it is not difficult to imagine that Aquila and Priscilla may
have done something to protect Paul from the fury of the mob at the
risk of their own lives.
Since Romans was written within a year of Paul's leaving Ephesus
after the silversmiths' riot, it seems quite likely that Priscilla and
Aquila were still there and that the last chapter of greetings is indeed
appended to a copy of the epistle which was sent to the Ephesian
church.
Rufus
Most of the names in the final chapter of Romans are completely
unknown except for their listing here. There is a natural attempt to
identify as many of them as possible with those of the same names
mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. Thus, Paul says:
Romans 16:13. Salute Rufus . . . and his mother . . .
There is one other Rufus mentioned and that is in Mark. When
Jesus is on the way to crucifixion, Mark says:
Mark 15:21. And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian . . . the
father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
Neither Matthew nor Luke, in telling of Simon of Cyrene, mentions
his sons. That Mark does so would lead one to suppose that he knows
them and expects his readers to know them, so that through them
Simon of Cyrene might be identified.
After all, Mark (if he is indeed the author of the second gospel) did
accompany Paul on at least part of his first missionary voyage, and
might have known various other companions of Paul. If so, the Rufus
whom Paul greets at the end of Romans and the Rufus who was the
son of Simon of Cyrene may be one and the same.
On the other hand, Luke (if he is indeed the author of the third
ROMANS 1099
gospel) seems to have been a much closer associate of Paul than Mark
was and he does not mention Rufus in connection with Simon of
Cyrene.
And then, Rufus would be a common name. It means "red" and
may well have been applied to a good percentage of those who hap-
pened to have red hair. It would be quite easy to suppose that Mark's
Rufus and Paul's Rufus were two different people.
Jason
With his own greetings out of the way, Paul sends the greetings also
of the close co-workers who were with him in Corinth at the time
Romans was being written:
Romans 16:21. Timotheus my workfettow, and Lucius, and Jason,
and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you . . .
Timotheus (a name more familiar, in English, as Timothy) is the
young man who joined Paul in Lystra, on the latter's second missionary
voyage (see page 1053) and who remained a close associate of the
apostle for the remainder of Paul's life. Lucius would seem to be the
Luke who is considered to be the author of the third gospel and of
Acts.
As for Jason, he is usually identified with a man of Thessalonica, who
may have offered Paul and Silas the hospitality of his house when the
apostle arrived at that city in the course of his second missionary
voyage (seepage 1059). In Thessalonica, Paul and Silas were in con-
siderable danger from a mob and Jason found himself in the midst of
a riot:
Acts 17:5. But the Jews which believed not ... set all the city
on an uproar and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring
them out to the people.
Jason was dragged before the authorities and had to deposit bail in
order to regain his freedom. Paul and Silas were, in the meantime,
ushered safely out of the city and to Berea.
In Berea, they apparently gained another convert, Sopater, with
whom the Sosipater of Romans 16:21 is usually identified. He is
mentioned in Acts toward the close of the third missionary voyage, just
1100 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
after Romans was written. Paul is leaving Greece, and two of those
mentioned at the close of Romans are going with him.
Acts 20:4. And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of
Berea . . . and Timotheus . . .
Tertius
Apparently Paul commonly used a secretary to transcribe his words.
This can be deduced from the fact that at the end of some epistles,
Paul specifically mentions that the signature is his own, placed there
by his own hand, as a sign of the authenticity of the letter. The
remainder of the letter is therefore to be presumed to be by another's
hand, written at Paul's dictation:
1 Corinthians 16:21. The salutation of me Paul with mine own
hand.
This is, of course, not for a moment to be taken as indicating Paul
to be illiterate. A learned Jew could not possibly be illiterate. Never-
theless, the use of a secretary leaves one free to think without the
disturbance of having to form the words physically as one thinks. Then,
too, there is the very practical point that a professional secretary is
bound to cultivate a neat and legible handwriting, and it would not
reflect on Paul's literacy to suppose that he (like many great men in
history) may well have had a poor handwriting.
Romans is the one epistle in which the secretary is named, or, rather,
names himself; and adds his own greetings:
Romans 16:22. I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you . . .
Or, it may be, Tertius is the man who made the copy that was sent
on to the Ephesians.
Gaius and Erastus
Tertius adds the greetings of still others:
Romans 16:23. Gaius mine host . . . saluteth you. Erastus the
chamberlain of the city saluteth you . . .
ROMANS
1101
Gaius is apparently offering Paul and his party the hospitality of his
house at this time. If the epistle were indeed written in Corinth,
then Caius is a Corinthian and, indeed, a man of his name is mentioned
in Paul's letters to the Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 1:14. ... I baptized none of you but Crispus and
Gaius.
Again, if Erastus is a city official, the city in question ought to be
Corinth; and indeed in Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy, an Erastus is
mentioned:
2 Timothy 4:20. Erastus abode at Corinth . . .
as though he were remaining behind in his home town. Thus, a number
of points combine to make Corinth more probable as the place at which
Romans was written.
11. 1 CORINTHIANS
THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS • STEPHANUS * SOSTHENES * APOLLOS "
CHARITY * EPHESUS
The Epistles to the Corinthians
Following the Epistle to the Romans are two epistles to the Co-
rinthians which can be referred to as "1 Corinthians" and "2 Corin-
thians." The 6rst of these is almost the length of Romans, and the
second is not much shorter.
The church at Corinth has been founded by Paul about 51, in the
course of his second missionary voyage. He had reached Corinth
after his unsuccessful stay in Athens (see page 1065), and in Corinth he
had met Priscilla and Aquila.
He returned to Antioch by way of Ephesus, taking Priscilla and
Aquila with him and leaving them at Ephesus while he went on to
Antioch. In the course of his third missionary voyage, Paul returned to
Ephesus and remained there from 55 to 57. It was during this interval
that he wrote 1 Corinthians for he says in it:
1 Corinthians 16:8. ... I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.
This cannot refer to his brief stay at Ephesus at the conclusion of the
second missionary voyage for events are referred to in the epistle which
must have taken place after that time.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to a still earlier letter he had written
to the men of that city:
1 Corinthians 5:9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company
with fornicators.
1 CORINTHIANS 1103
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
This early letter (which we might call "o Corinthians") is not,
however, necessarily lost. Parts of it may have been combined by later
editors with the two epistles we do have.
Stephatms
This very first letter, o Corinthians, which is not preserved separately
in the canon, apparently elicited some sort of response, and a letter
was brought to Paul in Ephesus by some of the leading men of the
Corinthian church. At least Paul alludes to their coming:
1 Corinthians 16:17. I am glad of the coming of Stephanus and
Fortunatus and Achaicus . . .
There are no other Biblical references to Fortunatus and Achaicus,
but the fact that they are Corinthians seems evident from a reference
1104 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
made by Paul earlier in the epistle to people in Corinth whom he had
personally baptized:
1 Corinthians 1:16. . . . I baptized also the household of Stepha-
nas . . .
Sosthenes
It was the letter, and perhaps the word of mouth information
brought by these Corinthian emissaries in response to o Corinthians,
that caused Paul to write the letter we know as 1 Corinthians. He
introduces this letter as coming from himself and another:
1 Corinthians 1:1. Paul, called to be an apostle . . . and Sosthenes
our brother . . .
The only other place in the Bible in which a Sosthenes is mentioned
is in connection with Paul's arraignment before Gallio the governor
of Achaea, during the apostle's first stay at Corinth (see page 1067).
Gallio refused to rule on the case, maintaining that the matter of
Paul was a problem for the Jews to decide among themselves.
Following this decision:
Acts 18:17. . . . all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of
the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat . . .
But there was no reason for the Greeks to beat him after Gallio
had dismissed the case, and the King James translaters seem to
have introduced the word unnecessarily. The Revised Standard Version
has the phrase read: "And they all seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the
synagogue, and beat him in front of the tribunal."
The "they all" might very likely refer to the Jewish conservatives
who had come to the courtroom to hear sentence pronounced against
Paul, and who were disappointed and frustrated over Gallio's action.
They may have turned against their own leader, who, as "prosecutor,"
had mishandled and muffed the case.
Indeed, it might even be argued that the Jews felt that Sosthenes
was "soft on Christianity" and had deliberately refrained from prosecut-
ing Paul with full vigor. At least, there is a tradition that Sosthenes
did turn Christian afterward and eventually joined Paul and was with
1 CORINTHIANS
1105
him in Ephesus at the time 1 Corinthians was written. If this were so,
Sosthenes would be a logical person to add his weight to the epistle,
for he would be a Corinthian of note addressing Corinthians.
Apollca
Apparently one piece of news that disturbed Paul was the tale of
dissensions and doctrinal disputes within the Corinthian church:
1 Corinthians 1:11. . . .it hath been declared unto me of you . . .
by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions
among you.
There is no other mention of Chloe in the Bible, but it is possible
that Stephanus and the other emissaries met for worship in the house
of a woman named Chloe. Perhaps there were other houses in which
small groups gathered (the infant church at Corinth could very well
have had no formal meeting house) and the emissaries were identified
by naming their particular house.
Paul details the nature of the dissensions:
i Corinthians 1:12. . . . every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and
I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
This might be taken as referring to specific doctrinal difference that
had already grown up around the leaders of the church. Cephas (the
Aramaic name of which "Peter" is the Latin equivalent— see page 824)
might represent the more conservative element of Jewish origin, holding
to the Law; while Paul represented the liberal attitude that de-
emphasized the importance of ritual.
Those who claimed to follow Christ might be "fundamentalists" who
wished to adhere only to the reported sayings of Jesus himself and not
to the added teachings of either Peter or Paul.
This leaves Apollos. Apollos had arrived in Ephesus after Paul had
left it toward the conclusion of his second missionary journey. He had
been a follower of John the Baptist, but Priscilla and Aquila had
converted him to Christianity ( see page 1 07 1 ) .
After Apollos had become a Christian, he decided to go to Greece
and work for the cause there:
1106
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Acts 18:27. • • • was disposed to pass into Achma . . .
m ■ • •
Acts 19:1. And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Cor-
inth . . .
At Corinth, Apollos worked well, for Paul says:
1 Corinthians 3:6. I have planted, Apollos watered . . .
It is because Paul refeis in this epistle to Apollos' work in Corinth,
which had to come after Paul's Srst stay in Ephesus, that we know the
epistle had to be written during Paul's second, and more extended,
stay in that city.
Apollos' work in Corinth was sufficiently effective for him to win a
personal following who admired him and considered him as their
leader, as opposed to those who spoke of Paul. In what way Apollos'
teachings differed from Paul's we don't know. The teachings might
not have differed at all and the dispute may have rested on purely
personal grounds; one group might have admired Apollos' style of
preaching more than Paul's.
At least there seems to have been no animosity between Paul and
Apollos. Some time before 1 Corinthians had been written, Apollos
must have come back to Ephesus from Corinth and there he and Paul
remained friends, for he is always referred to in friendly manner in
Paul's letters:
1 Corinthians 16:12. As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly
desired him to come unto you ... he will come when he shall
have convenient time.
The friendship remains, for in one of Paul's last letters, he commends
Apollos to the care of the one he addresses:
Titus 3:13. Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey
diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them.
Charity
Paul recommends unity to the Corinthian church and proceeds to
answer questions concerning such things as the role of sex among
1 CORINTHIANS 1107
Christians. Paul believes sexual abstinence to be most desirable, but
marriage is not sinful and is indeed necessary if that is the only way
to keep a man from being driven into irregular unions by the whips
of desire.
Paul clearly regrets that marriage should be necessary, for he, in
common with the Christian fellowship generally, was convinced that
the second coming was soon to take place (the new Messianic hope)
and that worldly matters would come to an end, anyway:
1 Corinthians 7:29. But this 1 say, brethren, the time is short . , .
• • • •
1 Corinthians 7:31. . . . the fashion of this world passeth away.
After dealing with such minor matters as the necessity for a man
worshipping with his head uncovered and a woman doing so with her
head covered, Paul passes on to the matter of spiritual gifts:
1 Corinthians 12:1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I
would not have you ignorant.
The phrase "spiritual gifts" is a translation of the Greek "charisma"
which means "gift."
The Greeks had three goddesses that personified all that was delight-
ful and charming. They were known by the related word "Charites"
because the desirable qualities of person that made one attractive to
others was considered to be a gift of these goddesses.
In Latin, these goddesses were the "Gratiae," which again carries the
notion of "gifts" freely given without question of payment (that is
"gratis," for which we are "grateful").
The goddesses become in English, the "Graces." A narrow use of the
word has come to signify that gift of the Graces which is characterized
by smooth and harmonious physical movement. This is "grace" and a
person blessed with it is "graceful." More broadly, it can refer to a
variety of gifts, and someone who is capable of making such gifts with
an air of pleasure is "gracious."
Christians placed emphasis on the graciousness of God. In the old
Jewish view, the relationship between God and "his chosen people"
was that of a covenant or contract. God would take care of his people
in return for their obeying the Law. But Christians now abandoned
the Law and argued that in any case no return made by man was
1108
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
adequate as payment for the care taken of him by God. All that man
received was the free gift of God without return. Thus, Paul says:
Romans 6:15. ... we are not under the law, but under grace.
Paul lists some of the spiritual gifts awarded men by the grace of
God; gifts including wisdom, faith, the working of miracles, prophecy,
and the gift of tongues (see page 10()0). Paul admits all these to be use-
ful gifts, but maintains one gift to be superior to all the rest:
1 Corinthians 13:1. Though I speak with the tongues of men
and of angels, and have not charity, 1 am become as sounding brass,
or a tinkling cymbal.
1 Corinthians 13:2. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and
understand all mysteries, and all knowledge: and though I have all
faith . . . and have not charity, I am nothing.
But what is charity? The Greek word used by Paul, which is here
translated as "charity," is "agape," a word which is usually translated
"love." In the Revised Standard Version, in fact, the passage begins:
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love . . ."
The Latin version of the Bible translates "agape" as "caritas" mean-
ing "dear." Something is "dear" if it can be attained at a great price, or
if it cannot be obtained even for a great price. If you love something
you hold it dear regardless of its intrinsic worth.
For that reason "agape" meaning "love" and "caritas" meaning
"holding dear" have much in common. The King James Version uses
the closest English analogue of the latter and makes it "charity."
Unfortunately, the translation of "agape" leaves something to be
desired in either case. Charity has come to be applied specifically to
one aspect of "holding dear"— the ability to hold the poor and un-
fortunate so dear as to be willing to share one's own wealth and
fortune with them. Charity has therefore been narrowed to mean alms-
giving and since alms are often given grudgingly and with disdain, and
are accepted with humiliation and muffled resentment, the word
"charity" has even come to carry a somewhat tainted flavor.
Similarly 'love" has come to be applied to that variety of "holding
dear" which implies sexual attraction. It becomes almost embarrassing
to those who are used to the occurrence of the word "love" in its pop-
ular-song sense, to hear Paul praise it. Sometimes there is the impulse to
qualify it and translate "agape" as "divine love," "holy love," "spiritual
1 CORINTHIANS
1109
love," or even "Christian love." However, those who experience "agape"
even faintly know what Paul means.
As for the remaining spiritual gifts, Paul finds that of prophecy
superior to that of tongues; indeed, he seems rather impatient with
those possessing the latter gift. To have them too freely encouraged
produces pandemonium at service. Paul therefore recommends that they
speak only one at a time and even then only when someone with
the corresponding gift of interpretation is present. It is interesting
that Paul distinguishes between prophecy and tongues, because origi-
nally the two were the same (see page I-283).
For the further sake of order at worship, Paul recommends that
prophets, too, speak only one at a time and that women not speak at all.
Ephesus
At the end of the epistle, Paul earnestly preaches the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body. He points out that if there were no resurrec-
tion, then Jesus could not have been resurrected. And if Jesus were
not resurrected, all Christian doctrine falls to the ground. And if that is
the case what is the purpose of all their efforts? Why should not
everyone live for the moment?
1 Corinthians 15:32. If after the manner of men I have fought
with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?
let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
The phrase about fighting with beasts may have been meant purely
allegorically. Paul may have referred to his labors against the beasts of
paganism and sin.
Perhaps, though, there is also something of the literal in it. Can Paul
have in mind the rioting sparked by the silversmiths? Were these
rioters the beasts? Or might he have considered the possibility of being
condemned for blasphemy as an aftermath of the affair and made to
undergo a punishment such as facing wild animals in the public arena?
We can't tell.
12. 2 CORINTHIANS
TIMOTHEUS * CORINTH * TITUS
Timotheus
The First Epistle to the Corinthians was given, presumably, to Stepha-
nus and the others to take back to Corinth with them. Along with
them, however, as a personal emissary, Paul was sending his beloved
friend, Timothy; to instruct them in the Pauline doctrine anew:
1 Corinthians 4:17. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus,
who is my beloved son, . . . who shall bring you into remembrance
of my ways, . . . as I teach every where in every church.
He urges the Corinthians to accept Timothy kindly:
1 Corinthians 16:10. Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be
with you without fear . . «
This sending of Timotheus is recorded in Acts. During Paul's stay in
Ephesus in the course of his third missionary voyage, and just before
the silversmiths' riot is described, he sends his emissaries:
Acts 19:22. So he [Paul] sent into Macedonia . . . Timotheus
and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.
If this Erastus is the same referred to at the end of Romans (see
page HOI), he is a Corinthian and is going home.
Corinth
Eventually, Paul himself plans to go to Corinth:
2 CORINTHIANS 1111
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
1 Corinthians 16:5. Now I will come unto you, when I shall
pass through Macedonia . . .
1 Corinthians 16:6. And it may be that I will . . . winter with
you.
This, too, according to Acts, was done, for after the silversmiths'
riots:
Acts 20:1. . . . Paul . . . departed for to go into Macedonia.
Acts 20:2. And when he had gone over those parts . . . he came
into Greece,
Acts 20:3. And there abode three months . . .
If he abode three months in Corinth specifically, as seems very
likely, this would be the second visit to that city mentioned in Acts. It
is apparently while en route to Corinth in 57 that 2 Corinthians (or a
part of it) was written. Both epistles to the Corinthians were thus
1112
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
written before Romans, which was composed after Paul had reached
Corinth and settled down there.
With reference to his journey toward Corinth, Paul says:
2 Corinthians 13:1. This is the third time I am coming to you . . .
Apparently in between the first and second visits to Corinth which
are mentioned in Acts, there was another visit. It is usually suggested
that Timothy's mission met with failure and strong opposition on the
part of those Corinthians who followed apostles other than Paul (see
page 1105). It was this which made Paul try a personal visit.
Apparently Paul's flying visit was a failure (and perhaps that was why
it was not mentioned in Acts) and on his return he wrote an angry
letter:
2 Corinthians 2:4. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart
I wrote unto you with many tears . . .
This letter, written in anguish, is thought to be actually contained in
2 Corinthians as we now have it, making up the last four chapters.
Titus
The angry letter was sent to Corinth by the hand of Titus, a
companion of Paul who is never mentioned in Acts, but is spoken of on
several occasions in the epistles.
Titus is a Gentile, for in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul describes
his own coming to Jerusalem in 48 to attend the Council of Jerusalem
and says:
Galatians 2:3. . . . neither Titus, who was with me, being a
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised . . .
Since the central issue facing the council was this very point of
Paul's non-circumcision of Gentiles after conversion (see page 1 050)
Paul was making his attitude quite plain in the heart of the territory of
the opposition.
It was by this Titus that Paul sent his angry letter to Corinth and
made up his mind to let that letter do its work and not go to Corinth
again:
2 CORINTHIANS 1H>
2 Corinthians 2:1. But I determined . . . that I would not come
to you in heaviness.
However, when he left Ephesus afteT the silversmiths' riot, and
traveled westward to Troas, he was worried over the fact that Titus had
not returned:
2 Corinthians 2:13. 1 had no rest in my spirit, because I found not
Titus my brother . . . [so] I went from thence into Macedonia.
There the news was good. He met Titus, who brought word that the
pro-Paul faction at Corinth had won out:
2 Corinthians 7:6. . . . God . . . comforted us by the coming of
Titus;
2 Corinthians 7:7. And not by his coming only, but by the
consolation wherewith he was comforted in you . . .
2 Corinthians 7:9. Now I rejoice . . . that ye sorrowed to re-
pentance . . .
Part of the repentance, apparently, was the punishment of some
individual who had offended Paul, perhaps on the occasion of his short
second visit, by stubbornly opposing him. The person is not named
and the occasion not described, but the punishment is sufficient.
Paul, apparently anxious not to allow his victory to engender such
bitterness as to bring about an irrevocable split, urges forbearance. He
writes a conciliatory letter (the first nine chapters of 2 Corinthians),
again delivered by Titus, and in it he urges moderation, saying of the
leader of the anti-Paul faction:
2 Corinthians 2:5. . . .he hath not grieved me, but in part . . .
2 Corinthians 2:6. Sufficient to such a man is the punishment . . .
2 Corinthians 2:7. . . . ye ought rather to forgive him, and
comfort him . . .
And, eventually, Paul visited Corinth, sending 2 Corinthians in the
course of this trip there, and nothing is said of further dissension.
13. GALATIANS
CALATIA
Galatia
The fourth of the epistles is addressed:
Galatians 1:1. Paul, an apostle . . .
Galatians 1:2. . . . unto the churches of Galatia . . .
The problem arises at once as to what is meant by "Galatia." Galatia
proper was the region settled by the Gauls three centuries before Paul's
time (see page 733) . This was a relatively small area in north-central
Asia Minor. After the Romans took over central and southern Asia
Minor a century before Paul's time, the areas known as Lycaonia and
Pisidia were combined with Galatia proper and the whole became the
Roman "province of Galatia."
The original Galatia can therefore be called "North Galatia" and
the Roman additions to it "South Galatia."
On Paul's first missionary journey, he and Bamabas traveled from
Pamphylia through Pisidia and Lycaonia ("South Galatia"), then re-
traced their steps, so that cities such as Lystra, Derbe, and Antioch in
Pisidia were probably visited twice.
On Paul's second missionary journey, he and (this time) Silas visited
South Galatia:
Acts 16:1. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra . . .
Having done so Acts goes on later to say:
Acts 16:6. . . . they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region
of Galatia . . .
GALATIANS 1H5
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
It is possible that this includes portions of North Galatia, though
no city in that region is specifically mentioned.
On Paul's third missionary journey, again it is said:
Acts 18:23. • • • he departed, and went over all the country
of Galatia and Phrygia in order.
Again this may refer to North Galatia.
In short, there are four passages through Galatia mentioned in
Acts:
(1) the first half of the first missionary voyage through cities of South
Galatia specifically;
(2) the second half of the first missionary voyage through cities of
South Galatia specifically,
(3) the second missionary voyage through cities of South Galatia
specifically, but possibly also through North Galatia.
1116
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
(4) the first part of the third missionary voyage, possibly through
South Galatia, North Galatia or both.
In Galatians, Paul says:
Galatians 4:13. Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I
preached the gospel unto you at the first.
The usual interpretation is that Paul is referring to a first visit in
which he preached while quite ill. And if there was a first visit there
must be a second, else why bother to identify the particular visit he
is referring to by saying, to paraphrase the verse, "on that first visit
when I was sick."
If Paul is addressing the South Galatians, then the two visits may
be numbers 1 and 2 above, both having taken place in the course of
the first missionary journey, which concluded about 47.
It was then the controversy broke out over the non-circumcision of
Gentile converts and the Council of Jerusalem was called to settle the
matter. Apparently the conservative view in favor of circumcision was
particularly virulent in the Galatian churches. Indeed, during the sec-
ond missionary voyage when Paul visited Derbe and Lystra (visit num-
ber 3 in the list above) and accepted Timotheus as his disciple, he
cautiously urged his young friend to accept circumcision (see page
1053).
Presumably, there was a strong party in the Galatian churches who
denounced Paul's views and denied his authority to grant immunity
from circumcision. Galatians is Paul's defense against this and his
strong maintenance of his authority.
If Galatians were indeed written soon after the first missionary
voyage, then it would have been written from Antioch in 47 and
might well be the earliest of Paul's epistles to be preserved and, in-
deed, possibly the earliest of all the books of the New Testament to
achieve written form.
Paul summarizes his early life, indicating the manner in which he
was converted to Christianity, and of his labors since. He refers to
Peter's coming to Antioch prior to the calling of the council and he
refers also to Barnabas who was with him only on the first missionary
voyage:
Galatians 2:11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood
him to the face . . .
CALATIANS 1117
Galatians 2:13. . . . Barnabas also was carried away with their
[those fearing the conservatives] dissimulation.
Paul does not specifically refer to the decision of the Council of
Jerusalem (held in 48) which supported his views and which, one
might think, ought therefore to be quoted. This backs the possibility
of an early date for the epistle.
On the other hand, Paul speaks of reaching a private agreement
with James, Cephas [Peter], and John:
Galatians 2:9. . . . ]ames, Cephas, and John . . . gave to me
and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto
the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
This might have taken place prior to the first missionary voyage. But
it might also have taken place after the council. With Paul's views
having won out, James, Peter, and John were merely accepting 'the in-
evitable. And the agreement would be made with both Paul and
Bamabas, even though it were after the first missionary journey, for al-
though the two never joined forces again, they had planned to.
Acts 16:36. And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us
go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached
. . . and see how they do.
It was only after the subsequent quarrel concerning John Mark that
Paul and Barnabas parted and that Paul went through Asia Minor
with Silas instead.
If Paul speaks of a first visit to the Galatians, that might be the first
of three, as well as the first of two. Or perhaps visits one and two
are considered a single visit since they took place within the limits of
a single missionary journey, and visit three, on the second missionary
voyage, is counted as the second.
If Galatians were written after the Galatian visit in the course of
the second missionary voyage, it might have been written from Corinth,
where Paul stayed for an extended period after having passed through
Asia Minor. The epistle would then have been written in 51 rather
than 47.
If the late date is accepted, one must ask why the Galatian churches
did not accept the decision of the Council of Jerusalem. Why were they
still so turbulent on the matter of circumcision that Paul had to send
a strong letter of rebuke?
1118
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
As it happens, decisions by the head of organizations are not al-
ways accepted by every one in the organization. There might well
have been a strong conservative party who rejected the council's de-
cision.
And if Paul does not refer to the council's decision in the epistle to
bolster his own view it might well be that he scorned to reply on the
authority of James, Peter, and John, but insisted on something more
than this. There are several places in Galatians where he goes out of
his way to stress his lack of debt to the Galilean apostles.
Thus, he starts off proudly:
Galatians 1:1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man,
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father . . .
Furthermore, he insists that he need submit to no other authority,
for his doctrine was not something he learned from the other apostles
who had known the living Jesus, but something he had learned
directly by revelation:
Galatians 1:12. For I [Paul] neither received it [his doctrine] of
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
If, however, Paul is addressing the people of North Galatia, then
he couldn't possibly have visited them twice until after the first part
of his third missionary journey. He might therefore have written
Galatians during his stay in Ephesus, shortly before he wrote 1 Corin-
thians, or even in Corinth in 58, shortly before he wrote Romans.
Some commentators prefer this late date because they view the sub-
ject matter of Galatians and Romans to be much alike, with Romans
a more detailed and thoughtful version.
14. EPHESIANS
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS * TYCHICUS
Epistle to the Ephesians
Whereas the first four epistles are universally admitted to have been
written by Paul, there is a dispute about the fifth, even though in the
version that has reached us, Paul's authorship is stated:
Ephesians 1:1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ ... to the saints
which are at Ephesus . . .
Included in the reasons for doubting Paul's authorship are certain
differences in style between this epistle and those which are un-
doubtedly Paul's, and the use of numerous words not characteristic of
Paul's other writings. Furthermore, although written to the Ephesians,
presumably late in Paul's life, after he had spent some years in the
city, it contains no personal greetings.
It is possible, of course, that the letter was not written to the
Ephesians specifically, for at least one very early manuscript does not
contain the words "at Ephesus" in the first verse. Perhaps it was an
epistle meant for churches generally, with copies sent to specific areas
with appropriate place names added; and perhaps the one that has sur-
vived was the Ephesian copy.
Traditionally, Ephesians was one of a group of epistles written in
62 while Paul was in prison in Rome, but this, too, can be disputed.
Even those who agree that the epistle was written in prison may argue,
in some cases, that the imprisonment was the one at Caesarea, prior
to the voyage to Rome (see page 1081), and that the epistle was writ-
ten in 59. Others even argue for an imprisonment at Ephesus, not
mentioned in Acts, at the time of the silversmiths' riot, about 57.
Tychicus
The bearer of the letter, whether a circular one to a number of
churches, or indeed a specific one to the Ephesians, was Tychicus.
Ephesians 6:21. . . . Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful
minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things . . .
In the Book of Acts, Tychicus is mentioned toward the close of
the third missionary journey, when Paul was leaving Macedonia for
Asia Minor:
Acts 20:4. And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of
Berea . . . and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus.
Tychicus, being a native of the province of Asia, may well have
been an Ephesian (Ephesus was the capital of the province) and
EPHESIANS 1121
could have been taking the epistle with him on the occasion of a visit
home.
Tychicus may have been left behind in Asia Minor after leaving
Macedonia with Paul, while the apostle went on to Jerusalem and im-
prisonment. If so, he rejoined Paul later on, for he is mentioned in
several of Paul's later epistles, and could have been the bearer of
Ephesians even if it were written as late as 62.
15. PHILIPPIANS
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHTMPPIANS • BISHOPS AND DEACONS " EPAPHRODITUS
* TRUE YOKEFELLOW
The Epistle to the Philippians
This, like Ephesians, is supposed to have been written from prison.
Paul alludes to his being in chains:
Philippians 1:13. . . .my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the
palace . . .
The phrase "in all the palace" is given in the Revised Standard
Version as "throughout the whole praetorian guard." Since the
praetorian guard was stationed in Rome, the site of the imprisonment
would seem to be fixed there. This is further evidenced by a reference
toward the end of the epistle:
Philippians 4:22. All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are
of Caesar's household.
Presumably those of Caesar's households are those servants or slaves
of the emperor who had been converted to Christianity. Caesar is a
common title for the Roman Emperor, in this case, Nero, and this
would seem to make it definite that the epistle was written at Rome
some time between 62 and 64. (Nero's violent persecution of the
Christians after the fire of 64 could scarcely have left any Christians
among his own household.)
PHILIPPIANS 1123
St. Pauls' First and Second Journeys
Bishops and Deacons
The epistle begins:
Philippians 1:1. Paul and Timotheus . . . to all the saints which
are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.
Philippi is the Macedonian city which Paul visited in the course of
his second missionary voyage ( see page 1 057 ) . It was there that Paul
founded a European church for the first time.
The faithful Timotheus is with Paul, but is not apparently under
formal imprisonment himself, or, if he is, he is soon to be released,
for the apostle hopes to send his friend to Philippi:
Philippians 2:19. . . . I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus
shortly unto you . . .
1124
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Hie reference to bishops and deacons gives us a tantalizing glimpse
as to the organization of the early Church, just enough to rouse curi-
osity, without even beginning to satisfy it.
The first leaders of the church were the apostles themselves, but as
the number of Christians increased, other leaders were appointed. It
is only natural that these were chosen from among those men pre-
eminent for experience and wisdom. These were most likely to be the
older men and they would naturally be called "elders."
Thus, when the dispute arose as to the noncircumcision of Gentile
converts:
Acts 15:2. . . . they [the church at Anb'och] determined that
Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to
Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
What's more, elders were regularly appointed in the various churches
founded by missionaries:
Acts 14:23. And when they [Paul and Barnabas] ordained elders
in every church . . . they commended them to the Lord . . .
This rule by elders was so universally accepted a matter that the
Bible scarcely bothers to mention the matter. Such rule was accepted
in secular governments as well as in religious bodies. Sparta was ruled
by a body called the "Gerusia" (from a Greek word for "old man")
and Rome was ruled by a body called the "Senate" (from a Latin
word for "old man").
(It should be mentioned, however, that we need not visualize the
elders as necessarily ancient graybeards. In ancient societies, where
the average life expectancy was thirty-five at best, anyone over forty
qualified as an "elder.")
The Greek word for "elder" is "presbyter" (from another Greek
term for "old man"). This was corrupted into "prester" (as in the
legendary Prester John) and in English has become "priest."
Paul uses the term "episkopos" (or "episcopus" in the Latin spell-
ing) as a synonym for presbyter. It means "overseer," someone who
is in charge and guides the way. "Episcopus" has become, in English,
"bishop." The word "deacon" is from the Greek "diakonos" and means
"servant." Consequently, when Paul's words are translated as "bishops
and deacons" what is really meant are "the elders and their helpers."
PHILIPPIANS 1 12l
After New Testament days the Church developed a complicated
hierarchy ("sacred government") of many levels. The basic groupings
were in order of decreasing authority: bishops, priests, and deacons. A
church in which bishops hold authority over wide areas is "episcopalian"
in character. The Roman Catholic Church is episcopalian, as is the
Greek Orthodox Church and several Protestant churches, such as the
Lutherans and Anglicans. The American analogue of the Anglicans calls
itself the Protestant Episcopal Church.
The Presbyterian Church is one in which bishops are not recognized
but in which the elders ("presbyters") in each church hold authority on
an equal basis.
None of the present significance of bishops, priests, and deacons
can safely be read back into the New Testament, however.
Epaphroditus
Apparently, Paul's relationship with the Philippian church was a
good one and the letter is an affectionate one of gratitude and of
warm exhortation. Indeed, the occasion of the letter is the arrival of
a messenger from Philippi with a contribution of money for Paul:
Philippians 4:18. ... 1 am full, having received of Epaphroditus
the things which were sent from you . . .
Furthermore, this was not the only time that the Philippians had
contributed to Paul's needs:
Philippians 4:15. . . . when I departed from Macedonia, no
church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving,
but ye only.
Philippians 4:16. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again
unto my necessity.
While in Rome, Epaphroditus fell sick, but recovered and now was
returning to Philippi with Paul's letter:
Philippians 2:27. . . . he was sick nigh unto death: but God had
mercy on him . . .
Philippians 2:28. I sent him therefore the more carefully, that,
when ye see him again, ye may rejoice . . .
1126
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
True Yokefellow
At the end of the epistle, Paul raises the matter of some small
dispute between two women of the Philippian church:
Philippians 4:2. I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that
they be of the same mind in the Lord.
Philippians 4:3. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help
those women which laboured with me in the gospel . . .
Nothing further is known of Euodias or Syntyche or what their
quarrel was about. However, the phrase "true yokefellow" is of interest
Whom could it mean?
There are some suggestions that it referred to Paul's wife and a
number of early commentators on the Bible supposed that Paul had
married Lydia, the seller of purple dye whom he met in Philippi and
with whom he stayed (see page 1058). This does not seem very likely
since Paul speaks as though he were unmarried. For in 1 Corin-
thians, when he reluctantly allows marriage in preference to irregular
sexual unions, he wishes that this were not necessary:
1 Corinthians 7:7. For I would that all men were even as I my-
self . . .
This would certainly imply that Paul had never had relations with
a woman. One might argue, perhaps, that he might have married for
companionship, even if sex were out of the question. Indeed, Paul
claims the right to do so if he chose:
1 Corinthians 9:5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a
wife, as well as other apostles . . .
But did he actually do so? It is generally assumed he did not
But if the "true yokefellow" is not Paul's wife (and the phrase is,
in any case, masculine in form in the Creek) it could refer to a close
fellow worker in Philippi. A number of names have been suggested—
Luke, for instance— but there is no really convincing argument in
favor of any of those suggested.
One interesting possibility is that what is intended here is a per-
sonal name. The word "yokefellow" is the translation of the Creek
PHILIPPIANS 1127
"Syzygos." Could there be a man with that name? Could Paul, by
"true Syzygos" mean that Syzygos is well named for he is a Syzygos
("yokefellow," "co-worker") in nature and deed as well as in name.
The trouble with that theory is that Syzygos is not known to have
been used as a personal name by the Creeks.
The mystery will probably never be solved.
16. COLOSSIANS
COLOSSE ' EPAPHRAS • THRONES, DOMINIONS, PRINCIPALITIES, AND POWERS *
LAODICEA • TYCHICUS • ARISTARCHUS ' DEMAS
Colosse
The next epistle (apparently also written from Rome in 62) is ad-
dressed to a city which Paul had never visited and which is not men-
tioned in Acts:
Colossians 1:1. Paul . . . and Timotheus . . .
Colossians 1:2. To the saints . . . which are at Colosse . . .
Colosse, or, more properly, Colossae, is a city in the province of Asia,
about 125 miles east of Ephesus. In the time of the Persian Empire, it
had been a great city on an important trading route. Since the time of
Alexander the Great, it had been declining.
Epaphras
If Paul had not himself visited Colossae and founded its church,
a close co-worker apparently did so. He speaks of the Colossians
knowing the gospel:
Colossians 1:7. As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellow-
servant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ . . .
Paul mentions Epaphras again at the close of the epistle as one of
those who sent his regards, so that Epaphras must have been with
him in Rome. This is made even more explicit at the close of the brief
colossians 11 29
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
Epistle to Philemon, which was written about the same time as Colos-
sians. There he says:
Philemon 1:23. There salute thee, Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in
Christ Jesus . . .
The term "fellowprisoner" might merely be a metaphorical expres-
sion for two individuals who are both completely obedient (and, there-
fore, slaves) to the Christian doctrine. Or it might mean that Epaphras
was not merely with Paul but that he was also in chains.
Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, and Powers
The occasion for the epistle was the news that had come to Paul
that the Colossians were falling under the influence of Gnosticism
(see page 963) • Some of the Colossians were coming to accept mystical
doctrines concerning vast heavenly hierarchies of angels, all serving as
1130
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
intermediaries between God and man. Jesus, by this view, would be
just another intermediary and perhaps not a particularly important one.
This Paul denounces. He lists the attributes of Jesus, insisting,
eloquently, that Jesus is all in all and that nothing can transcend him:
Colossians 1:15. . . . [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God . . .
Colossians 1:16. For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were
created by him and for him.
The reference to the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers
are to the names given various levels of angelic intermediaries, each
manifesting some mystical attribute of God. Paul warns against such
mystical speculations:
Colossians 2:18. Let no man beguile you . . . [into] worshipping
of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen,
vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.
Nevertheless, in the centuries after Paul, mystical thought invaded
Christianity and hierarchies of angels were adopted in profusion, al-
though Jesus was recognized as transcending them all. The two high-
est, seraphim and cherubim, come from the Old Testament, as do the
two lowest, archangels and angels. The intermediate levels: thrones,
dominions, virtues, powers, and principalities are, however, taken from
the Gnostic theories that Paul denounces.
Laodicea
Paul seizes the opportunity to address also the church in nearby
Laodicea:
Colossians 4:16. And when this epistle is read among you, cause
that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans . . .
Laodicea was located about ten miles west of Colossae. The town on
its site was rebuilt and improved about 250 B.C. by Antiochus II of
the Seleucid Empire, who named it after his wife Laodike. It re-
mained Seleucid till 190 b.c. when, after the defeat of Antiochus III by
Rome, the region about it was awarded to Rome's ally, Pergamum.
COLOSSIANS 1131
In 133 B.C. it became Roman along with the rest of Pergamum (there-
after known as the province of Asia or, simply, Asia).
As Laodice, after its renovation, grew in prosperity, that of the nearby
city Colossae declined. Hierapolis, about ten miles north of Laodicea, is
also mentioned at the close of the epistle. Speaking of Epaphras, Paul
says:
Colossians 4:13. . . .he hath a great zed for you, and them that
are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.
Tychicus
The epistle is to be taken to Colossae by Tychicus the Asian (see
page 458).
Colossians 4:7. AD my state shall Tychicus declare unto you . . .
A similar statement occur at the end of Ephesians:
Ephesians 6:21. . . . that ye also may know my affairs and how
I do, Tychicus . . . shall make known to you all things . . .
It seems hard to suppose that Tychicus would make two trips to
Asia Minor from Rome, if both Ephesians and Colossians were writ-
ten during the Roman imprisonment. Perhaps there was only one letter,
that to the Colossians, and perhaps Ephesians was an epistle written
later in time by someone other than Paul in imitation of Colossians.
There are certainly similarities between the two, for in Ephesians also
is stressed the transcendence of Jesus:
Ephesians 1:20. ... he [God] raised him [Jesus] from the dead,
and set him at his own right hand . . .
Ephesians 1:21. Far above all principality, and power, and might,
and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come:
Nevertheless, if we were to maintain that there were two letters, both
by Paul, we might suppose that he wrote a general letter to be taken
from church to church in Asia Minor (the one we now know as
Ephesians because the copy to Ephesus had happened to survive) and
1132
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
a more sharply focused one addressed to the Colossians specifically, be-
cause they seemed more prone to the Gnostic views than the others.
On his way to Colossae, Tychicus may have delivered copies of
Ephesians to various churches, including that at Laodicea.
Thus, when Paul asks the Colossians to have the epistle to them
read to the Laodiceans, he adds:
Colossians 4:16. . . . and . . . ye likewise read the epistle from
Laodicea.
This may refer to the copy of Ephesians sent to Colossae from
Laodicea.
Aristarchm
Paul sends greetings from those with him:
Colossians 4:10. Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and
Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas . . .
Marcus is presumably John Mark, and if he is now with Paul, the old
quarrel (seepage 1052) seems to have been made up.
Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Jewish background, had been with
Paul in Ephesus at the time of the silversmiths' riot and had been, in
fact, in considerable danger.
Acts 19:29. And the whole city was filed with confusion: and
having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, PauTs com-
panions in travel, they [the rioters] rushed with one accord into the
theater.
They were not killed, however, and Aristarchus accompanied Paul to
Macedonia and Greece, then back to Asia and, eventually, Jerusalem:
Acts 20:4. And there accompanied him [Paul] into Asia . . . of
the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus . . .
Later, Aristarchus accompanied Paul on his eventful sea voyage to
Rome:
Acts 27:2. ... we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of
Asia; . . . Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.
COLOSSIANS 1133
Demos
With Paul also are Luke and Demas:
Colossians 4:14. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet
you.
Demas is mentioned also in the accompanying Epistle to Philemon,
which sends greetings from the same group:
Philemon 1:23. There salute thee Epaphras . . .
Philemon 1:24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas . . .
Demas is referred to once again in a still later epistle. Apparently
Demas could not, in the end, take the hardships of being a Christian
and, facing the virtual certainty of cruel martyrdom, forsakes Paul— and
possibly Christianity as well. Paul says sadly:
2 Timothy 4:10. For Demos hath forsaken me, having loved this
present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica . . .
17. 1 THESSALONIANS
THESSALONICA ' THE TRUMP OF GOD
Thessalonica
Paul and Silas had visited Thessalonica in the course of Paul's second
missionary journey but had not been well received. They had been
driven out by members of the Jewish colony, indignant at what seemed
to them to be heresy (see page 1060). The two missionaries and their
company had moved on to Berea in Macedonia, then southward to
Athens and Corinth.
Nevertheless, a Christian church had been founded at Thessalonica,
made up of men who were of Gentile origin chiefly, and it is these
whom Paul addresses:
l Thessalonians 1:1. Paid, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the
church of the Thessalonians . . .
The Thessalonian church is apparently vigorous and pious. Paul
praises them and explains that he would like to visit them but could
not at the moment. He therefore took the step of sending his tried
companion, Timotheus, to them:
l Thessalonians 3:1. Wherefore when we could no longer for-
bear^ we thought it good to be left at Athens alone;
1 Thessalonians 3:2. And sent Timotheus . . . to comfort
you . . .
Timotheus returned with good news concerning the Thessalonians,
and Paul now writes to expound on some points of doctrine.
This letter must have been written during Paul's first stay in Corinth,
1 THESSALONIANS 1135
St. Paul's Fiist and Second Journeys
after he had left Athens, for in Acts we find he was already there
when Timotheus returned:
Acts 18:1. After these thing? Paul departed from Athens, and
came to Corinth;
• • • •
Acts 18:5. And when SUas and Timotheus were come from Mace-
donia, Paul . . . testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
All are together, in Corinth, and 1 Thessalonians is sent to Thes-
salonica in the name of all three. It follows that 1 Thessalonians was
written about 50 and that it is very likely the earliest of Paul's writings
to survive. There is a chance that Galatians was written as early as 47
(see page 1117) , but this is not considered very likely and most com-
mentators accept 1 Thessalonians as the earliest
1136
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The Trump of God
Apparently the Thessalonian church, mostly Gentile, is unused to
the theological principles developed in Judaism by the Pharisees and is
concerned over the matter of the resurrection and the final judgment.
Paul reassures them and describes the second coming in dramatic
terms:
1 Thessalonians 4:16. . . . the Lord himself shall descend from
heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thessalonians 4:17. Then we which are alive and remain shall
be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in
the air.
The picture of the "voice of the archangel, and . . . the trump of
God" lives with us in the common tradition of the archangel Gabriel
sounding the last trumpet as the final judgment conies. Paul speaks of
this last trumpet in 1 Corinthians, too:
1 Corinthians 15:51. . . . we shall all be changed,
1 Corinthians 15:52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at
the last trump . . .
Nevertheless, Paul does not say it will be Gabriel blowing his horn,
nor is this said anywhere in the Bible.
Paul is convinced that the time of the second coming is not to be
long delayed and certainly the use of "we" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17
points up his conviction that the great day would come in his own
lifetime. Nevertheless, he is careful not to specify exact times:
1 Thessalonians 5:1. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye
have no need that I write unto you.
1 Thessalonians 5:2. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of
the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
18. 2 THESSALONIANS
MAN OF SIN
Man of Sin
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians must have followed hard
upon the first, so it too may be dated 50 and considered to have been
•written in Corinth.
Apparently Paul's first letter created a disturbing stir. Some of the
Thessalonians rejected the possibility of the second coming, since every-
thing seemed to be going so ill and the persecutors seemed so powerful.
Paul therefore strenuously described the day of judgment again, as a
time of punishment for those who seemed so triumphant now:
2 Thessalonians 1:7. .. . the Lord ]esus shall be revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels,
2 Thessalonians 1:8. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them
that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord fesus
Christ:
He assures them that the great day is coming, but points out that an
essential prelude to that day is the temporary triumph of evil. The
very hardness of the times is, in this view, but further evidence of the
imminence of the Second Coming:
2 Thessalonians 2:3. . . . that day shall not come, except there
come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed . . .
2 Thessalonians 2:4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above
aU that is called God or that is worshipped . . .
This is reminiscent of a passage in Daniel referring to the Seleucid
persecutor, Antiochus IV:
1138 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
Daniel 1 1 : 36. And the king shall do according to his will; and he
shall exalt himself above every god . . .
So arises a parallel. As the success of the Maccabees came only after
the dark days of Antiochus IV, so would the second coming come
after the dark days of the "man of sin." Indeed, Daniel's words might
be considered as referring immediately to the Maccabean era and
ultimately to the day of judgment.
Paul may be echoing, here, Jewish mystical thought (which may in
turn have Babylonian and Persian roots) in which there is a certain
symmetry between the beginning and the end of creation. Thus, the
heaven and Earth were created, to begin with, through the destruction
of Tiamat in the Babylonian myth, or of Leviathan as is hinted in
some Biblical verses (see page I-487) . At the end of this creation, there
is a second creation of a more glorious type still that comes after a sec-
ond victory over the old enemy.
2 THESSALONIANS 1 H9
Ezekiel describes such a last battle between the forces of good and
evil in his account of Gog of the land of Magog (see page I-594). Once
Gog is destroyed, the ideal kingdom is established.
Jewish legend-makers, in the century before Jesus, gave the name
Belial or Beliar (see page I-204) to this final adversary of God. This
legend of Beliar may have been based not only on Antiochus IV but
also on other great enemies of Jewish nationalism afterward, such as
Pompey and Herod the Great.
It is to this final enemy that Paul refers when he says, in a deliberate
concatenation of opposites:
2 Corinthians 6:15. And what concord hath Christ with Belial? . ■ .
In the gospels, Jesus is quoted as listing the ills that would come
upon the world before the final judgment, and this includes men of
evil who pretend to speak in the name of God but do not. They are
false Messiahs:
Matthew 24:24. For there shall arise false Christs . . ■
In the First Epistle of John, such false Christs are referred to as
"antichrists" ("opposed to Christ").
1 John 2:18. ... ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even
now there are many antichrists . . .
If one speaks of "false Christs" and "antichrists" in the plural, the
reference might be to evil people or evil forces generally. Paul, however,
uses the singular. He speaks of "that man of sin." It is as though there
is an Antichrist, a particular man or force whose business it is to oppose
God, win a temporary triumph, and then be smashed into utter defeat.
It would seem quite reasonable to suppose that the single Antichrist
was Satan, but this is not specifically stated to be so. The search was on,
therefore, at various times in history for some individual human being
who might seem to play the role of Antichrist.
Perhaps Paul had in mind Caligula who, in 41, just about a decade
before the epistles to the Thessalonians were written, attempted to have
himself worshipped as a god within the Temple itself.
However, Caligula had been assassinated before he could quite cany
through his evil design, and, in any case, the world still stood. A
dozen years or so after the epistles, Nero launched his persecution of the
Christians in Rome and then many must have thought that here was
1140
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Antichrist at last. Other persecuting emperors— Domitian, Decius,
Diocletian— may, in their turn, have seemed to fill the role.
Through the Middle Ages, Christians saw other Christians as anti-
christ and in the time of the Reformation, accusations flew thickly in
both directions. Particular reformers were hailed as antichrist by Cath-
olics; particular popes were awarded the title by Protestants.
As the world went on and the second coming was delayed, despite
all these antichrists, the use of the term grew less frequent. Even men
who would seem to be perfect examples of Antichrist to their enemies,
as, for instance, Lenin or Hitler, were rarely (if at all) hailed with the
title.
19. 1 TIMOTHY
EPHESUS ' HYMENAEUS
Ephesus
Following 2 Thessalonians are three epistles attributed to Paul, which
deal largely with practical advice on the management of church affairs
and which are therefore often termed the "pastoral epistles."
(The word "pastor" originally meant shepherd, but has come to be
used more frequently for priest, who is viewed as a shepherd of souls.
The metaphoric view of humans as sheep overseen by religious leaders
pictured as shepherds is common in the Bible. The most frequently
quoted example is:
Psalm 23:1. The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
The first of the pastoral epistles is written to Timotheus (Timothy,
in English). It is one of a pair of such epistles and is therefore "the
First Epistle to Timothy" or 1 Timothy:
1 Timothy 1:1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . .
1 Timothy 1:2. Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith . . .
This epistle pictures a state of affairs that is rather puzzling. Paul
speaks of himself as free and on his travels:
1 Timothy 1:3. ... I besougfit thee to abide still at Ephesus,
when 1 went into Macedonia . . .
and:
1 Timothy 3:14. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come
to thee shortly . . .
1142 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
It seems impossible to fit the situation in 1 Timothy into any period
described in Acts and the only alternative (if Paul is indeed the writer
of the epistle) is to suppose that the rime referred to comes after the
conclusion of Acts.
Acts ends in 64 (see page 1089), the year in which Nero's persecution
of the Christians in Rome took place. It would certainly seem natural
to suppose that Paul would have been martyred in the course of that
persecution. In the light of 1 Timothy, however, it is usually assumed
that Paul was set free, presumably just before the fire at Rome that
served as pretext for the persecution.
If Paul then left Rome for the east promptly, he would be out of the
city when Nero seized Christians there, fed them to the lions, and
made living torches out of them.
According to that view, Timothy, who had remained with Paul
throughout his Roman imprisonment, would have accompanied the
apostle to Ephesus and stayed there, remaining in charge of the
1 TIMOTHY 1143
Ephesian church. According to later tradition, Timothy remained
bishop of Ephesus for the remainder of his life, being martyred toward
the end of the reign of the Roman emperor, Domitian, during another
and more general persecution of Christians.
There are some who argue, however, that the pastoral epistles are
not the work of Paul, but of a later writer who tried to give his views
on church organization more authority by publishing them as the work
of the apostle. This would make it unnecessary to make the trouble-
some assumption of Paul's liberation from Roman imprisonment in
64. It would also account for the fact that the style, vocabulary, and
attitude of the pastoral epistles do not seem typical of Paul.
Hymenaeus
The epistle urges Timothy to deal firmly with heretics who teach
false doctrine. Some have drifted away from the faith, says the writer:
1 Timothy 1:20. Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I
have delivered unto Satan . . .
In other words, they have been excommunicated. Probably Hyme-
naeus and Alexander were Gnostics, for that particular heresy was strong
in Asia Minor in the first century.
The excommunication did not serve to bring Hymenaeus back to
orthodoxy, for in a Second Epistle to Timothy he is mentioned again,
when false teachers are listed:
2 Timothy 2:17. . . . their word will eat as doth a canker: of
whom is Hymenaeus . . .
Alexander, mentioned along with Hymenaeus in 1 Timothy, is
mentioned again in 2 Timothy:
2 Timothy 4:14. Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil:
the Lord reward him according to his works . . .
The bulk of 1 Timothy continues with rules for choice of bishops
and deacons and with various regulations of churchly life.
20. 2 TIMOTHY
TROAS
Troas
The Second Epistle to Timothy, which begins with verses almost
identical with those of the First Epistle, gives additional instructions for
church organization. It seems to make allusions to rather wide traveling
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
2 TIMOTHY 1145
after Paul's liberation from his imprisonment at Rome. He mentions
Troas, for instance:
2 Timothy 4:13. The cloke tliat I left at Troas with Carpus, when
thou comest, bring with thee . . .
He also mentions Miletus:
2 Timothy 4:20. . . . Trophimus have I left at Miletum [Miletus]
sick.
It was during this period of freedom that Paul is assumed to have
written 1 Timothy. His last missionary journey must soon have come
to a close, however, for in 2 Timothy he speaks as someone who is
condemned to death and is ready to die:
2 Timothy 4:6. . . . I am now ready to be offered, and the time
of my departure is at hand.
2 Timothy 4:7. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my
course, I have kept the faith . . .
The usual assumption is that Paul was imprisoned again and, this
time, condemned and executed. The date of his death is given as 67 or
68, toward the end of Nero's reign. It follows that 2 Timothy is Paul's
last epistle, if it is genuine.
21. TITUS
CRETE • NICOPOLE * DALMATIA
Crete
The third of the pastoral epistles is addressed to Titus (see page 450),
who is in Crete:
Titus 1 : 1 . Paid, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ . . .
• • • •
Titus 1 14. To Titus, mine own son after the common faith . . .
Titus 1:5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest
set in order the things that are wanting . . .
Paul had sailed into a Cretan harbor on the occasion of his voyage to
Rome (see page 1086) and it is possible that Titus may have been left
behind there at that time. Or Paul and Titus may have visited Crete
during the supposed interval between two Roman imprisonments, and
Titus may have been left behind on that occasion.
Paul warns Titus against the dangers of heresy and reminds him of
the poor reputation of the men of Crete. Paul says:
Titus 1:12. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said,
The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
It is usually taken that the "prophet" being quoted is Epimenides of
Knossos, concerning whom there is no hard information at all, only
legend. He is supposed to have lived in the seventh century b.c. Ac-
cording to accounts in Roman times, he fell asleep in a cave when a
boy and slept for fifty-seven years (the original Rip Van Winkle) and
woke to find himself a wizard, living to an age of 150 or, according to
some who are anxious to improve still further on a good story, 300.
TITUS 1H7
St. Paul's Fiist and Second Journeys
Nicopolis
The Epistle to Titus seems to have been written while Paul was still
at liberty for the apostle says:
Titus 3:12. . . .be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for 1
have determined there to winter.
The epistle was therefore written before 2 Timothy.
The name "Nicopolis" means "City of Victory" and was a well-
omened name used a number of times. The most important Nicopolis
in the days of the Roman Empire was, however, one on the western
coast of Greece near the promontory of Actium where Augustus (then
Octavian, see page 923 ) had defeated Mark Antony. It was the final
battle of the long Roman civil wars and made possible the establishment
1148
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
of the Roman Empire and the general peace that settled over the
Mediterranean world for centuries.
Octavian himself founded the city on that site and named it in
honor of his victory. Its greatest renown came through the fact that the
great Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, came to Nicopolis about a quartet
century after Paul's stay, and established a school there.
Ddmatia
Titus is mentioned again in 2 Timothy, Paul's last epistle. He left
Crete and was sent on another mission:
2 Timothy 4:10. . . . Demos ... is departed unto Thessdonica;
Crescens to Gdatia, Titus unto Ddmatia,
Dalmatia, mentioned only here in the Bible, is what is now the
Yugoslavian coast, on the Adriatic shore opposite Italy. In early Roman
times, it was the haunt of troublesome pirates. Rome battled them on a
number of occasions and, by 155 B.C., Dalmatia had been forced to
submit to Roman overlordship. The Dalmatians revolted on a number
of occasions, however, and it was not until aj>. 9 that the land was
brought under complete and final control.
22. PHILEMON
PHHJEMON * ONESIMUS
Philemon
The shortest epistle attributed to Paul, and the most personal, is one
to Philemon, a native of Colossae:
Philemon 1:1. Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy . . .
unto Philemon . . .
Philemon 1:2. And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus . . .
and to the church in thy house . . .
Philemon was apparently a leader in the Christian community at
Colossae, for it was in his home that church meetings were held.
Apphia is thought to be his wife and Archippus his son. Archippus is
mentioned at the conclusion of Colossians, where Paul tells those he is
addressing in that city:
Colossians 4:17. And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry
which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.
It may have been Archippus, then, that actually led the services at
Colossae, and instructed the gathering on doctrinal points.
Onesimus
Indeed, the Epistle to Philemon was written at the same time as
Colossians, all are agreed, while Paul was in his first Roman im-
prisonment. Thus, when Paul sends the Epistle to the Colossians by
the hand of Tychicus (see page 1131), he sends also another person:
1150
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
St. Paul's First and Second Journeys
Colossians 4:8. ... I have sent [Tychicus] unto you . . .
Colossians 4:9. With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother,
who is one of you . . .
Onesimus, apparently, was a slave of Philemon. He had run away,
taking some valuables of his master with him. Somehow he reached
Rome, where he encountered Paul and was converted to Christianity.
Paul was now sending him back to his master with the Epistle to
Philemon as a personal letter of intercession. Paul says:
Philemon 1:10. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus . . .
Philemon 1:11. Which in time past was to thee unprofitable . . .
Since Onesimus means "profitable" there is a wry pun here. Paul
urges Philemon to receive Onesimus as a fellow Christian and not
as merely a returned slave to be punished. Paul even offers to be
responsible himself for any financial loss to Philemon:
PHILEMON 1151
Philemon 1:15. . . . thou shouldest receive him for ever;
Philemon 1:16. Not now as a servant, but . . . a brother . . .
Philemon 1:18. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought,
put that on mine account;
Philemon 1:19. . . . I will repay it . . .
Paul recognizes Christianity as belonging to all, making no distinction
of sex, race, nationality, or conditions of servitude. He says, in a famous
verse:
Galatians 3:28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus.
Nevertheless, while Paul urges kindness to the slave Onesimus, who is
now Philemon's brother in Christianity, there is no hint anywhere in
Paul that slavery might be wrong and immoral as an institution. Indeed,
Paul even admonishes slaves to obey their masters, so that Christianity,
however novel some of its tenets, was by no means a doctrine of social
revolution:
Ephesians 6:5. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your
heart, as unto Christ . . .
For that matter, nowhere else in the Bible, either in the Old Testa-
ment or the New, is slavery condemned in the abstract. Nor was slavery
denounced by any ancient prophet or philosopher among the Gentiles.
Slavery was so intimately entwined with the social and economic system
of its time that its non-existence was unthinkable. (One wonders if it is
thinkable now only because we have machines to do the work of slaves.)
All that the moral leaders of antiquity could and did do, in and out
of the Bible, was to urge humanity on slaveowners. Thus, Paul
recognizes Philemon's ownership of Onesimus, and sends Onesimus
back into slavery. Even Onesimus' conversion to Christianity makes
him no less a slave and Philemon will be within his legal rights to
punish the slave. Paul can only plead with him to be kind.
23. HEBREWS
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS * MELCHTZEDEK
The Epistle to the Hebrews
This fairly long epistle is intricately constructed and was originally
written in highly polished Greek, so that it seems to be more a carefully
written sermon, cast into epistolary form. The author refers to himself
on a number of occasions as speaking rather than writing:
Hebrews 6:9. Bur, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you,
and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
Furthermore, it does not begin as an epistle does, with the formal
greetings of the writer or writers to a specifically named person or
group being addressed but begins, rather, with a long well-constructed
sentence that stretches over four verses:
Hebrews 1:1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his
Son . . .
Who the writer might be, then, is not stated. The King James
Version follows the most common tradition by ascribing the epistle to
Paul, so that it is headed "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Hebrews."
The most tempting evidence in favor of this is a mention at the end
to Paul's other self, Timothy:
Hebrews 13:23. Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at
liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
HEBREWS H53
Journeys of the Apostles
1154
ASIMOV'S CUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Yet the verse might have been added to bolster the Paul theory,
which needs bolstering badly, for there is much against it The style is
much more polished than Paul's is anywhere else. Moreover, the
arguments and theology are not characteristic of Paul, and in one or
two places run flatly against what he says in other epistles. The line of
argument is rather that of an eloquent Jew learned in the Alexandrian
philosophy of men such as Philo (see page 963) .
It is usually taken for granted nowadays, particularly among Protes-
tant commentators, that Paul did not write the epistle. Who the author
might be, if it is not Paul, is not known, of course. Several among the
associates of Paul have been considered; as, for example, Silas or
Barnabas.
Martin Luther suggested that Apollos may have been the writer and
this is a very attractive suggestion. Apollos was an associate of Paul
(see page 1106) and is described thus:
Acts 18:24. . . .a certain Jew named ApoUos, bom at Alexandria,
an eloquent man, and migjity in the scriptures . . .
This is exactly what one would need to produce Hebrews, and one
might almost say that if Apollos were not the author, he ought to be.
To whom is the epistle addressed? What does the general term 'To
the Hebrews" mean? Does it refer to a specific church? Is it intended
for Jews everywhere? Or for Christians of Jewish background?
The one hjnt is that at the conclusion, the writer sends the greetings
of those about him:
Hebrews 13:24. . . . They of Italy salute you.
This might make it seem that the writer is outside Italy and is
addressing a group within Italy. Those with the writer who are from
Italy would naturally send greetings to their compatriots.
Then, too, the first known use of this epistle was by a Roman
Christian named Clement in 96. The epistle existed in that city before
it existed anywhere else, perhaps. It may be, then, that the epistle
was addressed to Christians of Jewish origin in Rome, and came
possibly from Alexandria.
And when was it written? If it had been written by Paul, then the
date would probably fall about 64. There are several references to the
falling away of men who were previously faithful and the writer exhorts
HEBREWS 11^5
them to remain in the faith, threatening them with divine punishment
if they do not:
Hebrews 10:28. He that despised Moses* law died without mercy
under two or three witnesses:
Hebrews 10:29. Of ^ much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall
he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of
God . . .
This might be appropriate for the time of the Neronian persecution
in Rome in 64 when it took a great deal of fortitude to remain
Christian, and when it was necessary for the author to reassure the
faithful and promise a speedy second coming:
Hebrews 10:35. Oast not away therefore your confidence . . .
Hebrews 10:36. For ye have need of patience . . .
Hebrews 10:37. For yet a little while, and he that shall come
will come, and will not tarry.
And yet the difficulties of the Neronian persecution would fall on
all Christians alike. Why, then, should the epistle exhort, according to
its name, and by its whole line of argument, specifically those of
Jewish background?
It is possible that the epistle was written after the destruction of the
Temple in 70, when general conditions within the Christian fellow-
ship changed radically. To the Christians of Gentile origin, this destruc-
tion would not have mattered greatly. It might even have been a source
of satisfaction that the Jews who had not accepted Jesus as Messiah had
thus been fittingly punished.
To the Christians of Jewish extraction, however, the end of the
Temple must have been a terrible blow. Its end would have made
sense to them, perhaps, only if it were followed by the establishment,
at long last, of the ideal state; if, that is, the second coming had been
the climax to which the Temple's destruction had been the prelude.
But the years passed after the Temple's destruction and no second
coming took place. Christians of Jewish background may even have
felt that the destruction of the Temple could only have been the sign
of God's anger at the Christian heresy. The increasing numbers of
Christians of Gentile extraction, openly hostile to Jews, might have
contributed to their alienation. Conversions to Christianity must largely
have ceased among the Jews, and increasing numbers of Christian Jews
1156
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
must have reverted to the older faith, leaving the Church virtually
entirely Gentile from 100 onward.
Perhaps, then, Hebrews was written about 80, when Jewish alienation
was increasingly obvious and when it seemed to the writer that Jewish
defection might gravely damage the Christian cause.
Melchizedek
The bulk of Hebrews, therefore, is an eloquent attempt on the part
of the writer to demonstrate, entirely through Old Testament references,
that the doctrine of Jesus is superior to that of Moses, and that the old
Jewish teachings can only be climaxed and properly brought to its peak
in Christianity.
Thus, he endeavors to show Jesus to be the ideal high priest
foreshadowed in the very first book of the Bible:
Hebrews 6:20. . . . Jesus, made an higji priest for ever after the
order of Melchisedec.
This refers to an incident that occupies three verses in the Book of
Genesis. When Abram [Abraham] and his band are returning from the
rescue of Lot from the hands of an invading raiding party, the patriarch
passes by Salem (usually taken to be the city eventually known as
Jerusalem).
Genesis 14:18. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth
bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Melchizedek was both king and priest and this was seized upon
before the Exile to justify the priestly functions of the king of Judah at
a time when the Temple priesthood was striking hard to reserve those
functions for itself (see page I-504). Thus one of the psalms states:
Psalm 110:4. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou
art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
If this were a coronation psalm, the king of Judah to whom it was
addressed would in this fashion be flatteringly addressed as both king
and high priest "after the order of Melchizedek."
In post-Exilic times, when the kingship was gone and the priesthood
HEBREWS H57
retained full power, the original significance of the psalm was gone. In
its place, the psalm gained Messianic significance.
Thus "Melchizedek" means "king of righteousness." And since
"Salem" means "peace," Melchizedek as ruler of Salem is "the Prince
of Peace" and that is a Messianic title:
Isaiah 9:6. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: . . .
and his name shall be called . . . The Prince of Peace.
Furthermore, the verses in Genesis are too brief to give the name of
Melchizedek's father or his children. In post-Exilic times, there was
gradually ascribed a mystic significance to this and it was taken to mean
that Melchizedek had neither father nor son but existed eternally and
represented an everlasting priesthood without beginning or end:
Hebrews 7:1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, . . .
Hebrews 7:2. . . . which is, King of peace;
Hebrews 7:3. Without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto
the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Melchizedek, therefore, seems to be the representative of the Messiah,
and may even have been thought by some to have actually been the
Messiah, briefly visiting the Earth in order to encounter Abraham.
Abraham apparently recognized the priestly character of Melchizedek
for he gave him the usual share of the spoils accorded the priesthood— a
tenth (or "tithe").
Genesis 14:20. . . . And he [Abram] gave him [Melchizedek]
tithes of all.
The writer of Hebrews comments on this by saying:
Hebrews 7:4. Now consider how great this man [Melchizedek]
was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the
spoils.
And if Abraham himself acted the part of submission to Melchizedek,
even more so must the Levites— the Jewish priesthood— who are de-
scended from one of Abraham's descendants. If the psalmist's reference
concerning "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" is now
applied to Jesus, it follows that Jesus' doctrine is superior to that of the
Jewish priesthood by reasoning based on the Old Testament itself.
24. JAMES
JAMES
James
Seven short epistles follow Hebrews, none of which are by Paul, and
none of which are addressed to specific churches. Because the problems
discussed are also general, they are considered epistles addressed to
Christians everywhere. They are therefore called the "general epistles"
or "universal epistles." Sometimes they are called the "Catholic
epistles" (because "catholic" is from the Greek "katholikos" meaning
"universal").
The first of these epistles is attributed to someone named James:
James 1:1. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad . . .
It is generally assumed that the James referred to here is James, the
brother of Jesus (see page 1023), who was the leader of the church in
Jerusalem.
According to the Jewish historian Josephus, James was stoned to
death in 62. This came at a time after the procurator Festus (see page
419) had ended his term of office and before the new procurator had
arrived. The high priest, Ananus II, controlled Jerusalem during this
interregnum and found himself facing the increasingly powerful party
of the Zealots who, only four years later, were to instigate the disastrous
rebellion against Rome.
James, as the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem, must have been
abhorrent to the Zealots, not for his doctrines, but for the fact that he
represented a pacifist group who urged peaceful submission to Rome.
Ananus II attempted to appease the turbulent Zealots by having James
JAMES 1159
Journeys of the Apostles
H60
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
executed. When the new procurator, Albinus, arrived, he naturally
interpreted this as an anti-Roman move and Ananus II was deposed.
If, then, James were indeed the author of the epistle, it would have
had to have been written before 62. Indeed, since the epistle is
addressed "to the twelve tribes" as though the problem of Christians
of Gentile origin had not yet arisen, and as the dispute over circumcision
which led to the Council of Jerusalem is nowhere mentioned, it is
sometimes supposed that the epistle was written before 48, the date of
the Council. If that were so, James would be the earliest book in the
New Testament, earlier than any of Paul's epistles.
However, the book is written in better Greek than one might expect
of a relatively unlettered Galilean like James. It might be that the
epistle was written about 90, in the time of the persecution by Domi-
tian. It might then have been ascribed to James to give it greater author-
ity.
The substance of the book is largely moralistic, advising its readers
on the path of good behavior. It might almost be considered a typical
piece of "wisdom literature" (see page I-507). Much the same might be
said of the other general epistles.
25. 1 PETER
SYLVANUS • BABYLON
Sylvanm
The next epistle is one of two ascribed to Peter:
1 Peter 1:1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers
scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and fii-
thynia . . .
Much of what this epistle contains sounds very much like Paul, and
the region being addressed— Asia Minor— was one that had been
proselytized by Paul's unremitting labors.
Peter was a Galilean, who was not very likely to be proficient in
Greek, and if he did write this epistle he would very likely have done
so through a translater. One is mentioned:
l Peter 5:12. By Silvanus, a faithful brother ... I have written . . .
The only Sylvanus mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, is the associate
of Paul, who was joined with him, for instance, in the writing of the
epistles to the Thessalonians:
1 Thessalonians 1:1. Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the
church of the Thessalonians . . .
This Sylvanus is considered identical with the Silas of Acts, the
associate who accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey. If
Peter's Sylvanus is identical with Paul's Silas, it would follow that Peter
was writing his epistle with the aid of someone well acquainted with
Paul's line of thinking. Peter, throughout the New Testament, is made
to appear a rather weak personality, and it is not beyond the realm of
1
162
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Journeys of the Apostles
1 PETES 1)63
possibility that in the presence of Silas he might easily be induced to
express himself in a Pauline manner.
There are some who suggest that Silas was the real author of the
epistle, but if that were so, why was it not ascribed to Paul, rather than
to Peter?
Babylon
It might also be argued that the epistle was written long after both
Peter and Paul were dead, and that it was merely ascribed to Peter to
lend it authority. Thus, at the conclusion of the epistle, the writer sends
greetings:
1 Peter 5:13. The church that is at Babylon . . . saluteth you . . .
Clearly, this cannot be taken literally. There was no church at
Babylon, for, indeed, the city no longer existed. But it is an old
Biblical device to use the name of a bygone persecutor in order to
indicate, discreetly, a present enemy. By Babylon, therefore, is surely
meant Rome.
If Peter is the author of the epistle, he is therefore writing from
Rome, where he would meet Silas and make use of his services. Later
legend does state firmly that Peter went to Rome, helped organize
the church there, served as its first bishop, and died a martyr during
the persecutions of Nero in 64. (Having received the primacy of the
church from Jesus himself Peter passed on this primacy, according to
Catholic doctrine, to the successive bishops of Rome that followed
him and upon this is based the theory of Papal supremacy.)
If Peter wrote this epistle, then, it would have had to be written
before 64. And yet the Bible says nothing directly of Peter's stay in
Rome, and PauL in the epistles written from Roman imprisonment,
gives no indication of the presence of Peter there.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the use of the term Babylon for
Rome would occur before 64 or even for some time afterward. In the
generation that followed the crucifixion, the chief enemy of the
Christians was the Jewish priesthood and it was to Roman officials that
Christians turned for protection; to procurators, governors, and even, as
in Paul's case (see page 1081), to the emperor himself.
The persecutions of 64 may have shaken Christian trust in Rome,
1164
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
but that was only the personal action of Nero, striving to please the
Roman populace by putting on a show of zeal in searching for the
arsonists who had presumably set the Roman fire. The persecution was
confined to the city of Rome and did not last long. The Christians
of the eastern provinces, where the large bulk of them were to be
found, were not touched.
Then not long after the Neronic persecution, the Jewish rebellion
smashed Jewish society and destroyed the Temple. After 70 the Jews of
the empire were in no position to try to crush Christianity; they were
in desperate danger of being wiped out themselves.
Under the Emperor Domitian, who reigned from 81 to 96, repressive
measures were taken against the Jews, with whom the Christians (for
the last time) were lumped together. This Domitianic persecution was
empire-wide and for the first time the Christians of Asia Minor felt
organized repression from the central government. The epistle, ad-
dressed to the Christians of Asia Minor, refers to such repression:
1 Peter 4:12. Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery
trial which is to try you . . .
From now on, for two centuries, it is the Roman government that is
Christianity's great enemy, and it is now that Rome would become
"Babylon." On this basis, it might be argued that 1 Peter is not
written by Peter at all, but was written by an unknown person in
Domitian's time, a generation after the death of Peter.
26. 2 PETER
SIMON PETER * THE DAY OF THE LORD
Simon Peter
The next epistle is also attributed to Peter:
2 Peter 1:1. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to them that have obtained like precious faith . . .
This is backed up by a reference to Peter's past life; to his witnessing
the transfiguration (see page 857).
2 Peter 1:16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,
when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
• • • •
2 Peter 1:18. . . . when we were with him in the holy mount.
Nevertheless, from the style and contents, many commentators de-
duce that it must be of rather late origin. Its writing is related to the
Epistle of Jude, which is itself late. Then, too, the epistle mentions
Paul's epistles, almost as though they were already collected and con-
sidered inspired:
2 Peter 3:15. . . . the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even
as our beloved brother Paul . . . hath written unto you;
2 Peter 3:16. . . . in aU his epistles . . .
It is possible that 2 Peter, like 1 Peter and James, may date to the
Domitianic persecution, and have been written about 90. (Indeed, the
book is not mentioned prior to 200 and some commentators suggest
that it may even have been written as late as 150.)
1166
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Journeys of the Apostles
2 PETER 1167
The Day of the Lord
An indication of the comparative lateness of the epistle may be
found in the fact that some Christians must have grown impatient
while waiting for a second coming that seemed endlessly delayed. The
writer of 2 Peter finds he must exercise his ingenuity to explain the
stretched-out delay, after Paul's promise of imminence. He explains:
2 Peter 3:8. . . . one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day.
2 Peter 3:9. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some
men count slackness . . .
The reference here is to a quotation from the psalms:
Psalm 90:4. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday
when it is past . . .
In other words, the writer maintains that while the second coming is
imminent (since so many authoritative spokesmen have said so) that
may mean imminence in God's view of time rather than man's view.
And it will come:
2 Peter 3:10. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
night . . .
27. 1 JOHN
THE WORD
The Word
Three epistles follow which, like Hebrews, do not have the name of
the writer in the first verse. However, the style and content are so
completely reminiscent of those of the fourth gospel, that it seems
certain that whoever wrote the fourth gospel wrote the epistles. Even
the characteristic designation of Jesus as the "Word" appears:
1 John 1:1. That which was from the beginning ... of the Word
of Ufe . . .
The three epistles are therefore ascribed to John son of Zebedee
(assuming he wrote the fourth gospel). It would further seem that,
like the fourth gospel, these epistles were written in Ephesus about
ico. This first and longest of John's three epistles warns against and-
christs (see page 1139) and presents an exhortation to brotherly love.
1 JOHN 1 1 69
Journeys of the Apostles
28. 2 JOHN
THE ftt>fh
The Elder
In the second and third (very short) epistles of John, the author
refers to himself merely as an elder or priest:
2 John 1:1. The elder unto the elect lady and her children . . .
There have been some speculations that there was a "John the
Presbyter" ("John the elder") in Ephesus who is to be distinguished
from John the Apostle, and that it was the former who wrote the
epistles of John and, therefore, the fourth gospel as well. This depends,
however, upon the faintest possible evidence, and is not taken seriously.
As for the elect lady, this may be taken either literally or figuratively.
John may be Addressing a particular Christian woman, or he may be
addressing the Church generally, referring to it in this allegorical man-
ner. In either case, he again exhorts his readers to follow the command
of brotherly love.
29. 3 JOHN
GAIUS
Gains
The third «pistle of John begins like the second:
3 John 1:1. The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius . . .
Gaius is some otherwise unknown personage who is treated by John
as an ally who will support him against the leader of another faction:
3 John 1:9. I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth
to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3 John 1:10. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds . . .
30. JUDE
JUDE • MOSES • ENOCH
Jude
The author of this epistle, the last of the general epistles, identifies
himself in the first verse:
Jude 1:1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,
to them that are sanctified . . .
If this is taken at face value, Jude the brother of James may be
identified as another brother of Jesus. Jude is but a short form of Judas
and the only pair of brothers named James and Judas in the New
Testament, outside this epistle, are among the brothers of Jesus:
Matthew 13:55. Is not this [Jesus] the carpenter's son? . . . and
his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
But this short epistle is very like the second chapter of 2 Peter, and
like 2 Peter, it may well date from the period of Domitian. Since it is
unlikely that a brother of Jesus would still be alive at that time, the
epistle may be by someone called Judah, a common name, and some
later editor added "brother of James" to increase its importance.
Moses
Jude, like 2 Peter, denounces certain heresies. Jude is unusual in that
it contains quotes from the apocryphal literature, which it advances as
authoritative. Thus, the writer compares the heretics with Satan, since
JUDE 1173
Journeys of the Apostles
1174
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the former slander the true believers as Satan slandered Moses. The
writer does not even bother quoting the details of the slander, assuming
it to be well known to his readers:
Jude 1:9. .. . Michael the archangel, when contending with the
devil he disputed about the body of Moses . . .
This is apparently a reference to "The Assumption of Moses" a
book written by some Palestianian Jew during the lifetime of Jesus. It
purports to tell of Moses' death, burial, and assumption into heaven.
The passage about Michael and the devil is not to be found in the
fragmentary copies that remain but from ancient references the matter
can be eked out.
It is the devil's task to act as a sort of prosecuting attorney as men's
souls are tried. In Moses' case, the devil demanded that he be barred
from heaven as a murderer, since he had killed an Egyptian overseer:
Exodus 2:11. . . . when Moses was grown . . . he spied an
Egyptian smiting an Hebrew . . .
Exodus 2:12. And he looked this way and that way, and when he
saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the
sand.
This is another argument for the lateness of Jude, since some time
would be expected to pass before so late a writing as "The Assumption,
of Moses" would begin to gain a cachet of authority.
Enoch
The writer of Jude also quotes from the Book of Enoch, which
contains a prophecy of the forthcoming divine punishment of the here-
tics:
Jude 1:14. And Enoch abo, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of
these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his
saints,
Jude 1:15. To execute judgment upon all . . .
The Book of Enoch, written about 100 B.C., is not accepted as
canonical by Jews, Catholics, or Protestants, but Jude apparently con-
JUDE 1175
sidered it inspired. He was even impressed by its supposed antiquity, for
he stresses that Enoch is "seventh from Adam"; that is, of the seventh
generation after Creation: Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel,
Jared, and Enoch.
31. 2 ESDRAS
THE PROPHET ESDRAS ' URIEL ■ THE SODOMITISH SEA * BEHEMOTH AND
LEVIATHAN * THE MESSIAH * THE EAGLE * THE TEN TRIBES * TWO HUNDRED
AND FOUR BOOKS * EGYPT " THE CARMANIANS
The Prophet Esdras
Apocalyptic literature was popular with the Jews of the Greek and
Roman period. Its production did not cease even after the destruction
of the Temple. Indeed, the increase of misery was bound to sharpen the
Messianic longing and the dream that the world would eventually be
set right by divine intervention.
About a generation after that destruction, a Jewish apocalypse was
produced which actually found its way into some versions of the Bible.
In the usual fashion of apocalyptic writing, it was attributed to an
ancient sage— in this case Ezra, the scribe who for a period dominated
Jerusalem after the return from exile some five and a half centuries
before the apocalypse was actually written (see page I-449). Although
quite Jewish in outlook, this apocalypse interested Christians because of
its strong emphasis on Messianic prophecies.
Some unnamed Christian edited the book about 150 and added
what are now its first two chapters. A century later still, another
individual, presumably also Christian, added what are now the final
two chapters.
The mid-portion of the book was originally written in Aramaic, then
translated into Greek. The first two and last two chapters were in
Greek to begin with.
Both Aramaic and Greek versions have vanished. A Latin translation
survived, however, and was included in Catholic versions of the Bible,
2 E SDR AS 1177
Mediterranean
Sea
ABILENE h
, KINGDOM <
'f I T U R A E A
..... r gaulanitis
V^GALI LE e'J ^' r "'
1 BipijM
^1
mi X
BATANAEA"
AURANITI5
■/Mr
; — t.
- r 5.;:>-,^>,i 1 --v-$:.<
Bastm
Apolhnui
.-'samariav
Asflrtoti
AUTONOMOUS
Gran
AnlipMrisz, jc**- i ': \
UNDER ROMAN PROCURATOR
k f Emmaus t ' ■>. ".*
EtoarS > .' Jerusalem
V*- •. * ! )
'AtiIus i ■X.z^riL-j.Btllilekem '■
JUDAEA/,;*" "
PERAEAr ;A
', murium/ _S
j .HisMxni »
0
Mar»«
NA BAT/4 E A NS*
\ *> CitltseflhePttipcllt
?5
Palestine at the Time of the Jewish-Roman War
1178
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
not as an integral part, but as a kind of appendix to the New
Testament. It is therefore included in the Apocrypha, and the King
James Version is a translation from the Latin.
Other translations, in various Oriental languages, also survive, how-
ever, and the Revised Standard Version draws on these as well as on
the Latin.
The apocalypse begins by giving the name of its purported author:
2 Esdras 1:1. The second book of the prophet Esdras [Ezra] . . .
The first book is, of course, 1 Esdras (see page I-461).
Uriel
The first two chapters of the book, Christian in outlook, describe
the manner in which the Jews have consistently failed to heed the
prophets. It rejects circumcision, and warns the Jews that they will
be forsaken and that others will be chosen in their stead. At times,
phraseology very reminiscent of the gospels is chosen.
With the third chapter, however, 2 Esdras begins in its original
version, and with it the first of a series of seven visions:
2 Esdras 3:1. In the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city I was
in Babylon, and lay troubled upon my bed . . .
2 Esdras 3:2. For I saw the desolation of Sion, and the wealth
of them that dwelt at Babylon.
On the face of it this would be the thirtieth year after Nebuchadnez-
zar's destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, or 556 b.c. This, how-
ever, was a century before the true Ezra's time.
Presumably it is the author's way of referring elliptically to the fact
that he was writing thirty years after the Roman destruction of
Jerusalem and the Temple, or a.d. ioo. Perhaps he was on a visit to
the city of Rome, then at the peak and pinnacle of its worldly power
and luxury, and the contrast between this and ruined Jerusalem was
more than he could bear, and it set him to writing the book.
Ezra is pictured as questioning God, wanting to know whether the
Babylonians (Romans) were not just as sinful as the Jews, if not
more so, and why it was, then, that they should flourish while the
2 ESDRAS 11 79
Jews, who at least knew God, even if they were not always perfectly
virtuous, were in such misery.
An angel was sent to him to answer his question:
2 Esdras 4:1. And the angel that was sent unto me, whose name
was Uriel, gave me an answer . . .
Uriel ("my light is God") is not to be found in the canonical
Old Testament. He is an apocryphal creation, brought to life during
the elaborate legends of angels and demons built up in post-Exilic
times through Persian influence. Uriel was one of the seven archangels
listed in the apocryphal Book of Enoch.
Because of the significance of his name, Milton, in Paradise Lost
viewed him as the angel who was in particular charge of the sun.
The Mohammedans identify Uriel with Israel, the angel in charge of
music and the one who will sound the last trump on the day of
judgment (the role of Gabriel in Christian legend).
The Sodomitish Sea
Uriel tells Ezra that the human mind is too limited to grasp
the purposes of God but that all will become plain in the end, with
the day of judgment and the coming of the ideal heavenly state.
This is coming soon but only after evil approaches a climax. Then:
2 Esdras 5:4. . . . the sun shall suddenly shine again in the
night, and the moon thrice in the day:
2 Esdras 5:5. And blood shall drop out of wood, and the
stone shall give his voice . . .
2 Esdras 5:7. And the Sodomitish sea shall cast out fish . . .
In other words, impossibilities will come to pass, heralding the end
of ordered nature. The Sodomitish sea is, of course, the Dead Sea, on
the shores of which Sodom had once stood ("see page I-71). There are
no fish in the salt-filled depths of the Dead Sea so that to find fish
teeming there would be as impossible as the sun shining by night,
wood bleeding, or stones crying out.
1180
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Behemoth and Leviathan
In a second vision Uriel describes more of the impossibilities that
will herald the coming of the end. Then, in a third vision, Ezra
describes the order of creation as given in the first chapter of Genesis.
He adds additional detail, however, in line with the legends that had
been added to the Biblical account in Greek times.
2 Esdras 6:47. Upon the fifth day . . .
2 Esdras 6:49. Then didst thou ordain two living creatures, the
one thou callest Enoch, and the other Leviathan;
2 Esdras 6:51. Unto Enoch thou gavest one part . . . wherein are a
thousand hills,
2 Esdras 6:52. But unto Leviathan thou gavest the seventh part,
namely the moist; and hast kept him to be devoured of whom
thou wilt and when.
The word "Enoch" is more properly "Behemoth" (see page I-485)
and it is that which is used in the Revised Standard Version. The
existence of these primordial monsters is an example of the colorful
legends upon which the rabbis delighted to elaborate. They find their
Biblical excuse in a single phrase in the Genesis account of the fifth
day:
Genesis 1:21. And God created great whales . . .
The word given here as "whales" is a translation of the Hebrew
word "tannin" which is more accurately taken as signifying huge
sea creatures generally. Indeed, the Revised Standard Version translates
the phrase, "So God created the great sea-monsters . . ."
It is interesting that 2 Esdras refers to the sea as taking up one-
seventh of the Earth's surface. The ancient geographers, unable to
penetrate far out to sea, had no idea of the true extent of the ocean.
Indeed, it was not until the explorations of Captain Cook in the
eighteenth century that it was fully borne in on man just how ex-
tensive the ocean was; and that it occupied, not 15 percent, but 70
percent of the planetary surface.
2 ESDRAS 1181
The reference to Leviathan being kept "to be devoured of whom
thou wilt and when" was in reference to the Rabbinic legend that when
the Messiah came and the ideal kingdom was established, the righteous
would celebrate at a gTeat feast in which Leviathan would be eaten.
Ezra goes through this account in order to reason that all this
magnificent creative endeavor was done for the sake of Israel, and
yet (the complaint he makes over and over) Israel has been devastated
by the triumphing heathen.
The Messiah
Uriel blames the situation on Adam's original sin in the garden of
Eden, and again goes on to describe details of the end of the world.
After all the signs have taken place:
2 Esdras 7:28. . . . my son ]esus shall be revealed . . . and
they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years.
2 Esdras 7:29. After these years shall my son Christ die, and all
men that have life.
The word "Jesus" is found only in the Latin copy and betrays
the hand of the Christian editor. In the Oriental languages, the
expression is "my son the Messiah" and it is in that way that the
Revised Standard Version gives it.
The Messianic kingdom, in this vision, comes not after the day
of judgment, but before. It is the final act of the modern world.
The duration of four hundred years for the Messianic kingdom
is found in the Latin translation. One Arabic translation gives a
thousand years. Revelation, the completely Christian apocalypse, also
speaks of a thousand years as the duration of the Messianic kingdom,
with two resurrections, one at the beginning and one at the end of
that kingdom:
Revelation 20:6. ... he that hath part in the first resurrection . . .
shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a
thousand years.
It is for this reason that people speak of the "millennium" (Latin
for "a thousand years") as a time of ideal bliss. Belief in this
doctrine is called "chiliasm" (from a Greek word meaning "a thou-
1182
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
sand" ) . Those who believe that the millennium is at hand, and there
have been many of these in each generation over the last two thousand
years, are called "millennarians" or "chiliasts."
Then, in a fourth vision, Ezra is allowed to see the glories of a
heavenly Jerusalem that would eventually succeed the destroyed Earthly
one.
The Eagle
The fifth vision is a complicated one after the fashion made popular
by the Book of Daniel:
2 Esdras 11:1. Then saw I a dream, and behold, there came
up from the sea an eagle, which had twelve feathered wings, and
three heads.
This is later interpreted by Uriel as being the fourth beast in
Daniel's vision:
2 Esdras 12:11. The eagle whom thou sawest ... is the king-
dom which was seen in the vision of thy brother Daniel.
2 Esdras 12:12. But it was not expounded unto him, therefore I
declare it unto thee.
The fourth kingdom is described in Daniel as follows:
Daniel 7:7. . . . behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and
strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth . . . and it had ten
horns.
To the writer of Daniel, writing in the time of Antiochus IV, this
beast represented the Seleucid Empire, and its ten horns were the
ten Seleucid kings up to the time of writing. But now the Seleucid
Empire was long since gone and it was necessary to reinterpret the
beast as the Roman Empire. The twelve wings were the twelve Roman
emperors up to the time 2 Esdras was written:
2 Esdras 12:14. In the same" shall twelve kings reign, one after
another;
2 Esdras 12:15. Whereof the second . . . shall have more time
than any of the twelve.
2 ESDRAS
1183
2 Esdras 12:16. And this do the twelve wings signify, which thou
sawest.
In order to explain this we must take Julius Caesar as the first
emperor. He wasn't really, but he was often considered such in ancient
times. (Thus, the Roman historian Suetonius wrote a famous and
still-existing book called The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, about a
generation after 2 Esdras was written. It dealt with the first emperors
and it too begins with Julius Caesar.)
The twelve are: Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero,
Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Domitian
reigned from 81 to 96 and since there are only twelve wings on the
eagle, it would seem that 2 Esdras was composed late in Domitian's
reign.
Augustus, the second emperor in the list, reigned forty-one years, far
longer than any of the remaining eleven, so that the second did indeed
"have more time than any of the twelve." In fact, Augustus' reign was
to prove longer than that of any emperor ruling from Rome in the
entire history of that empire.
Eventually the three heads of the eagle come into play:
2 Esdras 11:29. . . . there awaked one of the heads . . . namely,
it that was in the midst; for that was greater than the two other
heads.
2 Esdras 11:31. And, behold, the head . . . did eat up the two
feathers under the wing that would have reigned.
2 Esdras 11:32. But this head . . . bare rule . . . over all those
that dwell in the earth . . .
The three heads are the three emperors of the Flavian Dynasty.
The large central one is Vespasian, the two smaller ones on either
side, his sons Titus and Domitian. These would be viewed by the
writer of 2 Esdras with particular horror, for it was Vespasian and Titus
who led the armies against the Jews when they revolted and it was
Titus who took and sacked Jerusalem in 70 and destroyed the Temple.
The events referred to in the verses quoted above follow the as-
sassination of Nero when several candidates strove for the vacated
throne, with Vespasian winning out. He became emperor in 69 and
ruled without dispute for ten years.
1184
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
In the reign of the third head (Domitian), a new creature entered
and rebuked the eagle:
2 Esdras 11:37. • • • a rodnn g h° n chased out of the wood . . .
and said [to the eagle],
2 Esdras 11:39. Art not thou it that remainest of the four
beasts . . .
2 Esdras 12:3. . . . and the whole body of the eagle was burnt . . .
The lion is identified by Uriel:
2 Esdras 12:31. And the lion, whom thou sawest . . . speaking
to the eagle, and rebuking her . . .
2 Esdras 12:32. This is the anointed . . .
In other words, the Messiah will come at the end of Domitian's
reign and the Roman Empire will be destroyed while the Messianic
kingdom will rise in its place.
Of course, this did not happen and, instead, Domitian's reign was
followed by that of the five "good emperors" under whom, for
eighty years, Rome went through its profoundest period of peace and
quiet. Nevertheless, the Messianic longing among the Jews carried
them through to one last set of catastrophes.
The revolt in Judea from 66 to 70 had exacerbated relations be-
tween Jews and Greeks in Egypt. Eventually, widespread riots led to
considerable bloodshed on both sides with the Jews (who were in the
minority) eventually getting the worst of it. The Jewish temple in
Alexandria was destroyed and thousands of Jews were killed, putting
an effective end to what had been the most prosperous, numerous,
and intellectually productive Jewish community in the ancient world.
There remained a large colony of Jews in Cyrene to the west of
Egypt proper. In 115, during the reign of Trajan, the second emperor
to follow Domitian, Messianic fervor (fed by books such as 2 Esdras)
led them to revolt and after two years of bitter fighting they were
bloodily repressed. The teeming Jewish population of Egypt was
brought virtually to an end.
Then in 132, in the reign of Trajan's successor, Hadrian, the remain-
ing Jews of Judea revolted again. They followed the Zealot, Simon
Bar-Cocheba, who proclaimed himself a Messiah. It took three years
2 ESDRAS 1185
for the revolt to be suppressed and, by that time, Palestinian Jewry had
been exterminated.
What Jews remained were scattered in small colonies throughout
Roman Europe. They survived, but that is all. Over the course of the
next eighteen centuries they were continually oppressed and often
slaughtered but not until our own time did they ever again, as a
people, take up arms against their enemies.
The reality, as it turned out, was quite the reverse of the visions in
2 Esdras.
The Ten Tribes
In a sixth vision, Ezra sees a man rise from the sea, battle with
large numbers and defeat them with fire issuing from his mouth.
This is, of course, the Messiah destroying the heathen. But then:
2 Esdras 13:12. Afterward I saw the same man . . . call unto him
another peaceable multitude.
These are interpreted as follows:
2 Esdras 13:40. Those are the ten tribes, which were carried
away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea [Hoshea]
the king, whom Salmanazer [Shalmaneser] the king of Assyria
led away captive . . .
The Jews were still dreaming, eight centuries after the fact, that
the men of the Northern Kingdom still existed somewhere as self-
aware Israelites. There remained the hope, then and for centuries
afterward, that they might even make up a powerful and prosperous
kingdom that would someday come to the aid of their oppressed
brethren of Judah and Benjamin. They never did, of course, nor
could they— for they had long since melted into the populations sur-
rounding them.
Two Hundred and Four Books
In the seventh and final vision, Ezra is commanded to write the
books of the Bible. This actually is a reference to an important
1186
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
historic fact. The early books of the Bible did indeed receive their
present form during the Exile and immediately afterward. It was the
scribes, perhaps under Ezra himself, who prepared the copies and
completed the necessary editing of primitive legends, traditional law,
and priestly ritual. Ezra may also have been the "Chronicler" who
continued the history of Israel from Joshua's time to the rebuilding
of the Temple in 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah (see page
1-399).
One of the high points of the Book of Nehemiah is the scene in
which Ezra reads the law to the assembled people and expounds upon
it:
Nehemiah 8:5. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all
the people . . . and . . . all the people stood up:
Nehemiah 8:18. . . . day by day, from the first day unto the
last day, he read in the book of the law of God . . .
The remainder of the Bible, past Joshua, was added little by little,
with some parts not written (let alone accepted as canonical) before
150 B.C., some three centuries after the time of Ezra. Nevertheless,
the writer of 2 Esdras, looking back in time, easily idealized the
situation to the point where Ezra is visualized as writing the entire
Bible.
To be sure, Ezra isn't looked upon as actually composing the Bible.
According to orthodox tradition, the Bible had been written by various
pre-Exilic sages such as Moses and Samuel and, according to Rabbinic
legends, might very well have pre-existed throughout eternity. Ezra,
therefore, merely restored the Bible (according to the view in 2 Esdras)
to the condition it was in before the burning of the Temple by Nebu-
chadnezzar.
2 Esdras 14.21. For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth
the thing? that are done of thee or the works tliat shall begin.
Under divine inspiration, Ezra restores the Bible, dictating the entire
body of writing to five transcribers over a space of forty days:
2 Esdras 14:44. In forty days they wrote two hundred and four
books.
2 Esdras 14:45 the Highest spake, saying, The first that
thou hast written publish openly . . .
2 E SDR AS 1187
2 Esdras 14:46. But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest
deliver them only to such as be wise among the people . . .
The figure "two hundred and four" given in the Latin version
makes no sense. Other versions, accepted by the Revised Standard
Version, give the total number of books written as ninety-four and
the number to be published openly as twenty-four. This does make
sense, for the twenty-four books to be published openly are the
twenty-four of the Jewish canon, divided as follows:
(1) Genesis, (2) Exodus, (3) Leviticus, (4) Numbers, (5) Deu-
teronomy, (6) Joshua, (7) Judges, (8) 1 and 2 Samuel, (9) 1 and
2 Kings, (10) Isaiah, (11) Jeremiah, (12) Ezekiel, (13) the Twelve
Minor Prophets, (14) Psalms, (15) Proverbs, (16) Job, (17) Song of
Solomon, (18) Ruth, (19) Lamentations, (20) Ecclesiastes, (21) Es-
ther, (22) Daniel, (23) Ezra and Nehemiah, (24) 1 and 2 Chronicles.
The remaining seventy books, which were hidden away from the
general view, make up the Apocrypha ("hidden").
This is the actual end of 2 Esdras as originally written.
Egypt
The last two chapters, consisting of prophecies of disaster preceding
the last day, seem to have been added in the third century a.d.,
which would make it the latest passage anywhere in the Bible or
Apocrypha. Cod is quoted as speaking of Egypt, for instance, as
follows:
2 Esdras 14:10. Behold, my people is led as a flock to the
slaughter: I will not suffer them now to dwell in the land of
Egypt:
2 Esdras 14:11. Bur I will . . . smite Egypt with plagues, as
before, and will destroy all the land thereof.
This may be meant allegorically. It is the Christians who are
"my people" and by Egypt is actually meant Rome. Nevertheless, the
verses may have been inspired by actual events. The Jews were indeed
no longer suffered to dwell in the land of Egypt for by 135, the Jews
had been virtually wiped out throughout the east (see page 1 184) .
But then in the following century, something that might have looked
1188
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
like retribution was visited upon Egypt and it was smitten with
plagues.
In 215 the Emperor Caracalla visited Egypt and put an end to
the state support of Alexandria's great Museum. It had been the
city's intellectual glory for five centuries, but it was in decay now
and so was Rome now that the time of the good emperors had passed.
The situation was even worse according to the tales that have
been handed down to us (and which may have been exaggerated).
Caracalla was offended with Alexandria for some slights its citizens put
upon him. He therefore put the city to the sack, killing thousands.
Then, shortly after 260, in the reign of the Emperor Gallienus,
a famine and epidemic swept Egypt. Two thirds of the population of
Alexandria are supposed to have died in misery. Perhaps this was
going on at the time the last two chapters of 2 Esdras were being
written.
The Carmanians
Indeed, the third century saw the Roman Empire plunging into the
depths of misery and anarchy. In 235 the Emperor Alexander Severus
was murdered, and for fifty years afterward, emperor followed emperor,
each struggling with usurpers and suffering assassination in the end,
while all the realm fell apart. Christian mystics watching this have been
certain that the last days were at hand.
The writer of the end of 2 Esdras, describes a vision appropriate to
the last days:
2 Esdras 15:29. . . . the nations of the dragons of Arabia shall
come out with many chariots . . .
2 Esdras 15:30. Also the Carmanians raging in wrath shall go
forth . . .
2 Esdras 15:43. And they shall go stedfastly unto Babylon, and
make her afraid.
Naturally, the anarchy and confusion within the Roman Empire
offered an unexampled occasion for external enemies to pounce upon
her. The most powerful of Rome's enemies lay to the east. The Parthian
Empire, which had caused Rome so much trouble in the time of
2 ESDRAS
1189
Herod the Great (see page 785) had declined, but in 226, while
Alexander Severus was still on the Roman throne, a new dynasty, the
Sassanids, had come to power in the east. The Sassanid Empire carried
on warfare against Rome, as earlier the Parthians had done. And since
the Sassanids came to power just as Rome was sinking into anarchy
they won considerable success every once in a while.
In 240, Shapur I became the Sassanid king and he at once invaded
Syria. It is very likely that his hosts from the east represented the
"dragons of Arabia." If there is any doubt, the reference to the
Carmanians should lay that to rest, for Carmania was a large southern
province of the Sassanid Empire.
At the height of his attack, Shapur took Antioch and reached the
Mediterranean. Rome painfully retrieved its position, but in 258 Shapur
launched a second war against Rome and this time his successes were
even greater and Rome's state of dissolution even worse. In 259 Shapur
defeated a Roman army in Syria and captured the Roman emperor,
Valerian. Surely this sufficed to "make her [Rome] afraid."
The enemy capture of a Roman Emperor for the first time in Rome's
history and the dreadful famine in Egypt must have indeed made it
seem that the last days were at hand, if the final portion of 2 Esdras
was indeed being written at this time.
Shapur, in 260, even invaded Asia Minor, and 2 Esdras contains
apocalyptic denunciations of that region, too:
2 Esdras 15:46. And thou, Asia, that art partaker of the hope
of Babylon . . .
2 Esdras 15:47. Woe be unto thee, thou wretch, because thou
has made thyself like unto her . . .
Yet neither did this vision come true. In actual fact, Rome recovered.
Shapur was driven back by an Arab leader, named Odenathus. In 268 a
capable emperor, Claudius II, came to the Roman throne, and began
to win victories. Under his successor, Aurelian, the realm was knit to-
gether once more from the fragments into which it had fallen.
Beginning in 284, the Emperor Diocletian undertook a complete
reorganization of the empire and under Constantine (who began his
reign in 306) the empire turned officially Christian.
32. REVELATION
JOHN ' P ATM OS • ALPHA AND OMEGA • THE LORD'S DAY ' THE SEVEN
CHURCHES ' NICOLAITANS * THE BOOK OF LIFE ' PHILADELPHIA • LAODICEA
* THE LAMB • THE FOUR HORSEMEN • AN HUNDRED AND FORTY AND FOUR
THOUSAND ' EUPHRATES * THE CREAT CITY • THE DRAGON • THE BEAST *
THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST ' ARMAGEDDON ' BABYLON * COD AND MAGOG
* JERUSALEM
John
There are apocalyptic passages in several books of the Old Testament.
Isaiah, for instance, contains a "little apocalypse" (see page I-540) and
the latter half of Daniel is apocalyptic. However, no book of the Old
Testament is entirely apocalyptic, although one such book— 2 Esdras
(sec page 1176) —is to be found in the Apocrypha.
During Domitian's time, however, there was written a particularly
complex and richly symbolic apocalypse. Its author was a Christian
and it was eventually accepted (despite some initial misgivings) as
canonical. It now appears as the last book of the New Testament and
is the only entirely apocalyptic book in the Bible.
Since "apocalypse" means "unveiling" or "revelation" (of matters,
that is, which would otherwise remain forever hidden because they
cannot be penetrated by the unaided reason of man) this final book
can be called either "The Apocalypse" or "The Revelation." It is
called the latter in the King James Version.
The author of Revelation names himself and makes no attempt to
place the authorship upon some ancient sage (as is generally done
in apocalyptic writing):
Revelation 1:1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come
REVELATION 1191
The Seven Churches of Asia Minor
to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant
John . . .
That leaves us the question of who John might be. The most com-
mon tradition is that the fourth gospel, the three epistles of John,
and Revelation are all written by the same person, and that this per-
son is John the apostle; that is, John son of Zebedee. In the Catholic
versions of the Bible, the book is accordingly entitled "The Apocalypse
of St. John the Apostle."
It is true that the language of the book, while Greek, is filled with
Semitic word order and idioms, and is rich in Old Testament allusion
in almost every verse. One might almost consider this to prove that
the author was a Palestinian Jew who thought in Hebrew or Aramaic
and whose Greek had been learned late in life— as one would expect of
John the Apostle.
On the other hand, the language might prove nothing one way
or the other. It might very well be a self-conscious imitation of the kind
of apocalyptic language used by the Palestinian Jewish writers of the
previous two centuries. (We have a modem example of this sort of thing
in the Book of Mormon, which was written in self-conscious imitation
of the style of the King James Version of the Bible.)
Arguing against John the Apostle as writer is the enormous dif-
1192
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
ference in style, vocabulary, and thought between the fourth gospel
and Revelation. The two could not be by the same author and if John
the apostle wrote the fourth gospel, he could not have written Revela-
tion. Moreover if the writer of Revelation identifies himself as John and
is therefore clearly not trying to conceal his identity, why does he not
say openly that he is John the apostle, or John the Beloved Disciple?
The fact that he does not, makes it seem that he is another John.
The King James Version seems to display caution in this respect for
it does not identify John as the apostle, in the name of the book,
which it calls: "The Revelation of St. John the Divine." The Revised
Standard Version is even more cautious and calls it "The Revelation
to John," while the Jerusalem Bible says simply, "The Book of Revela-
tion."
Patmos
The book is undoubtedly the product of someone who, if not
a native of the western coast of Asia Minor, is a resident there. The
book begins in the form of a letter addressed to the churches of that
region:
Revelation 1:4. John to the seven churches which are in Asia . . .
Asia here, as everywhere in the New Testament, refers to the
western third of the peninsula of Asia Minor, the Roman "province of
Asia" of which Ephesus was the capital.
John locates himself specifically near that province:
Revelation 1 19. I John, who also am your brother, and companion
in tribulation, . . . was in the isle that is called Patmos . . .
Patmos is an island in the Aegean Sea, only about half the size of
Manhattan Island, and about seventy miles southwest of Ephesus.
Tradition has it that John was there in exile because of the danger of
martyrdom if he remained in Ephesus. There seems a hint of this in
the reference of John to his being a "brother and companion in
tribulation" of those of Asia.
The occasion for Revelation would seem to be similar to the
occasions for all apocalyptic writing. The true believers are being op-
REVELATION 1193
pressed and the forces of evil seem to be triumphing. It becomes
necessary to reassure those with fainting hearts that God is not sleeping,
that all is working out according to a prearranged plan, that retribution
will not be long delayed and that the final day of judgment with the
subsequent establishment of the ideal kingdom will be the result of
a course of events that is on the point of being initiated:
Revelation 1:3. Blessed is he that readeth . . . the words of this
prophecy ... /or the time is at hand.
Some have suggested that the specific time of persecution that led
to the writing of Revelation was that of Nero. It seems unlikely though
that Revelation could be a response to Nero's persecution, short-lived
as it was and confined as it was to the city of Rome. It was
Domitian's much more general persecution which first visited system-
atic danger and misery upon the inhabitants of Asia Minor.
It is assumed then that John left Ephesus for Patmos, either in
flight from persecution, or possibly carried off to prison there, in
Domitian's last years; and that he returned to Ephesus after Domitian's
death and the accession of the mild Nerva had put a term to the
anti-Christian crisis. Since Domitian was assassinated in 96, Revelation
is thought to have been written in 95.
Alpha and Omega
In his preamble, John rhapsodically describes the glory of God:
Revelation 1:7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye
shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of
the earth shall wail because of him . . .
Revelation 1:8. J am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to
come . . .
From the very start of the book one sees how the author composes
his symbols out of the very language of the apocalyptic passages of
the Old Testament. He is especially fond of Daniel which, up to the
time of Revelation itself, was the most successful and respected of the
apocalypses, because it was canonical.
1] 94 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Thus, when John says, "Behold, he cometh with clouds," this is
harking back to Daniel:
Daniel 7:13. . . . behold, one like the Son of man came with the
clouds of heaven . . .
Then, when he speaks of everyone seeing him, even his enemies
("and they also which pierced him") there is a self-conscious return to
the language of Zechariah:
Zechariah 12:10. . . . they shall look upon me whom they have
pierced, and they shall mourn . . .
And in describing the Lord as eternal, the language is that of the
Second Isaiah:
Isaiah 44:6. Thus saith the Lord . . . I am the first and I am the
last . . .
John translates Isaiah's remark into the metaphoric reference to the
Greek alphabet. Of the twenty-four letters of that alphabet, "alpha"
is the first and "omega" the twenty-fourth and last. To say that God
is "Alpha and Omega" is therefore equivalent to saying he is "first
and last." In modem alphabetical allusion, John might be paraphrased
as saying that God is "everything from A to Z."
The Lord's Day
The long vision of Revelation begins at a specific time:
Revelation 1:10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day . . .
There are several possible interpretations of what is meant by "the
Lord's day," but the consensus is that it refers to the first day of the
week, which we call Sunday. It is the Lord's day because it is the day
of the week on which the resurrection took place. It was celebrated
at first without prejudice to the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath,
and if John is really referring to Sunday when he speaks of the Lord's
day, it is the first unmistakable reference in Christian literature to
Sunday as a special day.
It was not until Christianity became the official religion of the
Roman Empire in the early decades of the fourth century that the
REVELATION
1195
Lord's day took over the full significance of the Sabbath, and that
the observance of the seventh day was dropped completely and left
entirely to the Jews.
The Seven Churches
John lists the seven churches to which his apocalyptic letters are
addressed, and all are in the province of Asia:
Revelation 1:10. I . . . heard behind me a great voice . . .
Revelation 1:11. Saying, . . . What thou seest, write in a book,
and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus,
and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto
Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Of these seven cities, Ephesus is the best known. It is the capital
of the province, is frequently mentioned in Acts, and is the city in
which the riot of the silversmiths had taken place and in which Paul
had spent considerable time ( see page 1 068 ) .
Thyatira was the city— noted for its dye manufactures— from which
came Lydia, the dye-seller whom Paul met in Philippi (seepage 1058).
Laodicea is the city near Colossae to which reference was made in
Colossians (see page 1 1 30) .
The remaining four cities are not mentioned in the Bible in any
book other than Revelation.
Smyrna is on the Asia Minor coast about forty miles north of
Ephesus. It was an ancient town which invading Greeks took over and
colonized as early as 1000 B.C., when David ruled over Israel. By 650 b.c.
it was a wealthy and cultured city. But then the Lydians, who had
built up a powerful kingdom in the hinterland, took the Greek-speak-
ing Aegean coast. Because Smyrna led the resistance, Alyattes, king of
Lydia, ordered the city's destruction.
According to later legend, Alexander the Great, when passing down
the coast three centuries later, conceived the notion of re-establishing
the city. After his death, his generals, Antigonus and Lysimachus, who
temporarily dominated Asia Minor, carried through this dream and
about 301 B.C. Smyrna lived again. By Roman times, it had grown
almost to rival Ephesus in size and wealth.
In fact, when all the famed ancient cities of the Asia Minor coast
1196
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
sank into decay and nun, Smyrna alone continued to flourish. Even
after the Turks captured Asia Minor, Smyrna (now known by the
Turkish name of Izmir) continued as a Greek center, right down into
modem times. After World War I, Greece, which had been on the
victor's side, claimed Smyrna as its own and landed an army in de-
feated Turkey in 1919. In the war that followed, it was Turkey that
was victorious and the Gieek army was driven into the sea. Izmir was
sacked and virtually destroyed and its long Greek history came to an
end. When it was rebuilt yet again it was as a Turkish town and it is
now, with a population of nearly four hundred thousand, the third
largest city in the nation.
Lying forty-five miles east of Smyrna is Sardis, the capital of the
Lydian kingdom which, for a while during the sixth century B.C., in-
cluded the western half of Asia Minor. In 546 b.c. Lydia came to a
permanent end when it was taken by Cyrus, the Persian conqueror.
Sardis was never to be the capital of an independent kingdom again,
but it remained an important city for centuries. An Athenian expedi-
tion burned it in 499 b.c. and that was the occasion that gave rise
to the great Persian war against Greece in the following decades. It
was not until the coming of the Turks that it declined and it was
finally destroyed by Timur (Tamerlane), the Mongol conqueror, in
1402.
Following the destruction of the Persian Empire by Alexander the
Great, a new independent, Greek-speaking nation was founded in
western Asia Minor. Its appearance as an independent nation can be
traced back to 283 b.c. and its capital was the city of Pergamum, some
sixty miles north of Smyrna and about fifteen miles from the coast.
At first, its rulers controlled only a small district about the city, but
under the enlightened sway of its rulers that territory grew and by
230 b.c. became the kingdom of Pergamum (named for its capital)
under King Attalus I.
Pergamum's great enemy was the Seleucid Empire, which was par-
ticularly threatening under its conquering king, Antiochus III (sec
page 707). Pergamum therefore allied itself with Rome, and when
Rome won its first victories in Asia Minor, Pergamum was rewarded
with large tracts of Seleucid territory.
Under Eumenes II, who reigned from 197 to 160 b.c— that is, dur-
ing the period of the Maccabean revolt— Pergamum reached the height
REVELATION 1197
of its prosperity and power. The city had a library second only to that
of Alexandria.
Roman power in Asia Minor grew, however, and in 133 B.C., when
Pergamum's king, Attalus III, lay dying, he left his kingdom to Rome
in his will. He felt that only so could he keep his land from being
torn apart by a struggle between various rivals for the throne. He was
right and Rome took over with only minor resistance.
The city of Pergamum was no longer the capital of the area, how-
ever, for it became the Roman province of Asia and the center of
affairs moved to the Greek cities of Ephesus and Smyrna. Pergamum
itself began to decline in Mark Antony's time, a generation before the
birth of Jesus. Mark Antony, trying to make up to Cleopatra of Egypt
for the destruction of some of Alexandria's Library during the small
war with Julius Caesar a dozen years before, transferred Pergamum's
library to Alexandria. Pergamum still exists today, however, as the town
of Bergamo (its name still recognizable) in modem Turkey.
Philadelphia is the smallest of the seven cities and is located about
twenty-five miles southeast of Sardis. It was founded about 150 B.C.
by Attalus II of Pergamum. He was known as Attalus Philadelphus
and the city was named in his own honor. It still exists today as a
small Turkish town named Alesehir, which means "red city," so called
from the color of its soil.
Seven
John describes a complicated vision of the Son of man to introduce
the letters he is sending to each of the seven churches, using terms
borrowed chiefly from Daniel. So frequent is the use of the number
seven throughout the Book of Revelation that it is usually suspected
that the seven churches were chosen not because that was all there
were in the province of Asia but because of the mystic qualities of
the number itself.
The importance of seven in the Bible appears first in the seven
days of the original week (the six days of creation plus the seventh
day of rest). That is not the ultimate source, however, for it seems
very likely that the first chapter of Genesis was an adaptation of
Babylonian creation tales and that the seven-day week was of Baby-
lonian (perhaps ultimately of Sumerian) origin.
1198
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
The week arose from the accidental astronomical fact that there
are seven visible bodies in the sky that move independently against
the background of the stars. These are the Sun, the Moon, Mercury,
Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The Babylonians found much of
mystic importance in the number and motions of these bodies and
founded the study of astrology, a pseudo-science that still exists in
undiminished importance and influence even in our own supposedly
enlightened society.
Each of the seven days of the week is presided over by a planet after
which it is named. We still retain relics of that in our own Sunday,
Monday (Moon-day), and Saturday (Satum-day). The other days of
the week are named, in English, for Norse deities, but in French,
for instance, the planetary system is clear. Tuesday is "march" (Mars-
day), Wednesday is "mercredi" (Mercury-day), Thursday is "jeudi"
(Jove-day), and Friday is "vendredi" (Venus-day).
The seven-day week was all the more useful in that it blended
closely into the lunar month, being about a quarter of that period of
time. The passage of a week therefore signified a change in the phase
of the moon— from new to first quarter, from first quarter to full,
from full to third quarter, from third quarter to new again. Indeed,
the very word "week" is from an old Teutonic word meaning "change."
The Jews borrowed the week from the Babylonians during the
period of exile, and it was then that the Sabbath gained its post-Exilic
significance ( see page 848 ) . It was then, also, that the number seven
became of mystic importance. For the purposes of the writer of Revela-
tion it was a fortunate coincidence that the city of Rome was widely
known to have been built on seven hills.
Nicolaitans
The second and third chapters of Revelation are quite prosaic for
in them John relays messages from each of seven angels to each of
the seven churches in relatively straightforward language. The short-
comings of each church are blamed and their staunchness praised.
The original readers for whom the messages are meant understand
all the allusions, of course, but modern readers are frustrated because
of the lack of background information. Thus, the church at Ephesus
is praised but there are some mysterious faults:
REVELATION 1199
Revelation 2:4. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, be-
cause thou hast left thy first love.
Apparently the Ephesian church in certain unspecified ways no
longer shows its original enthusiasm. Still, they are praised for rejecting
a sect which John views with strong disapproval:
Revelation 2:6. .. . thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes,
which I also hate.
Who the Nicolaitans might be and what their doctrines were is not
certainly known. It is to be presumed from the name that they followed
the teaching of someone called Nicolas.
There is only one Nicolas mentioned in the New Testament, and
he was one of the seven men appointed to be leaders of the Grecian
party very early in the history of the Church (see page 1006) :
Acts 6:5. . . . and they chose Stephen, . . . and Philip, . . . and
Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch . . .
A common guess in past centuries is that the Nicolaitans advocated
unrestricted sexual intercourse, that is, "free love." The legend arose
that Nicolas, the proselyte of Antioch, taking too literally the com-
munist doctrines of the apostles at the very beginning (see page 1003) t
offered to share his wife with the others. Perhaps this notion arose
because Antioch, like other large Gentile cities, had the reputation of
being extremely licentious, to the disapproving Jewish and Christian
puritans of Roman times.
A hint in this direction is found in the letter to the church at
Pergamos. It is warned:
Revelation 2:14. . . . thou hast there them that hold the doctrine
of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the
children of Israel . . .
Revelation 2:15. . . . also them that hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
The two heresies of Balaam and the Nicolaitans seem to be men-
tioned as distinct, but perhaps this is the parallelism of Hebrew poetry,
where the same thing is mentioned twice in different ways. If so,
what is the doctrine of Balaam?
There is a passage in the Book of Numbers that immediately follows
1200
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the tale of Balaam's oracles (see page I-183) which were intended to
be against Israel but which were turned in favor of Israel by God
against Balaam's own will:
Numbers 25:1. And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began
to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
It was supposed that Balaam had advised Balak, the king of Moab,
to seduce the Israelites in this manner, since such seduction would
bring the wrath of God down upon the sinners— to the great benefit
of Moab. Thus when the Israelites later took women alive as spoils of
war, Moses is quoted as angrily advocating their death and saying:
Numbers 31:16. Behold, these caused the children of Israel,
through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord
. . . and there was a plague . . .
Consequently, the name of Balaam was associated with sexual li-
cense and this would tie in with Nicolaitanism as a doctrine of release
from the severe sexual restrictions demanded by the Law and, for that
matter, by Paul's teaching.
Another hint of this is to be found in the message to the church at
Thyatira:
Revelation 2:20. ... I have a few things against thee, because
thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,
to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication . . .
The Book of Life
The church at Sardis gets the negative praise that there are a few
worthy among them, and for any that are worthy, the message is:
Revelation 3:5. . . . I will not blot out his name out of the book
of life . . .
Originally, the book of life was merely a metaphoric expression
signifying the list of living people. It is as though one were enrolled
in a great census kept in heaven of all those alive at any time. To die
would be to be blotted out of that book. Thus, Moses pleads with
God for the Israelites after the incident of the calf of gold (see page
REVELATION
1201
I-151) and says that he himself may as well die if the Israelites are not
forgiven:
Exodus 32:32. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not,
blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
In post-Exilic times, however, when the doctrine of the resurrection
of the body and of a life hereafter was developed, the book of life
came to be the list not of those alive in the world, but of those who
were to be awarded a life hereafter in heaven. The Book of Daniel,
in speaking of the resurrection, says:
Daniel 12:1. . . . there shall be a time of trouble . . . and at that
time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found
written in the book.
Again, in the Book of Psalms, God is asked to visit punishment upon
the wicked:
Psalm 69:28. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living,
and not be written with the righteous.
Philadelphia
Philadelphia is praised:
Revelation 3:8. . . . thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my
word, and hast not denied my name.
Philadelphia was to live up to this praise over a thousand years
later. During a period of three centuries, beginning in 1071, the Turks
slowly but inexorably swept over Asia Minor, eradicating Christianity
and making it Moslem— a situation that exists to this day. The last
city to be taken by the Turks, the last city to remain as a holdout,
the one that longest did not deny the name, was Philadelphia. It fell
at last in 1390 after an eight-year siege.
In 1682, William Penn was establishing a new colony on the shores
of the Delaware River in the New World and was founding a city. He
chose the name Philadelphia for two reasons. First, it means, literally,
"love of sister (or brother)" so that a city by that name can be
called the "city of brotherly love." And secondly, Penn remembered
1202
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
this encomium on Philadelphia in Revelation. Fenn founded the city
and Philadelphia is now the fourth largest city in the United States,
far larger than any of the ancient Philadelphias had ever been.
Laodicea
The church at Laodicea is bitterly condemned, not for being out-
spokenly opposed to the doctrines favored by John, but for being
neutral. John apparently prefers an honest enemy to a doubtful friend:
Revelation 3:15. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor
hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Revelation 3:16. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither
cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
"Laodicean" has therefore entered the English language as a word
meaning "indifferent" or "neutral."
The Lamb
The scene now switches to heaven and all the rest of the Book of
Revelation is thickly mystical. John begins by describing God in the
midst of the heavenly court with images drawn from Daniel and
Ezekiel, and with Isaiah's seraphim (see page I-528) prominently in-
troduced. Amid all these glories there is introduced a book sealed with
seven seals. This, presumably, contains the secrets of the future, which
cannot be revealed until, one by one, the seals are broken.
The hero who will reveal the contents of the book makes his ap-
pearance:
Revelation 5:6. . . . and, lo, . . . in the midst of the elders, stood
a Lamb as it had been slain . . .
Revelation 5:7. And he came and took the book out of the rigfit
hand of him that sat upon the throne.
The image of the Messiah as a lamb made into a kind of greater
Passover sacrifice was introduced in the fourth gospel (see page 992) .
It is explicitly stated in the First Epistle of Peter:
REVELATION 120?
i Peter 1:18. ... ye were . . . redeemed . . .
1 Peter 1:19. . . . with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb
without blemish and without spot . . .
By the end of the first century, that metaphor had become so well
known that the author of Revelation did not have to elaborate on the
identity of the Lamb.
The Four Horsemen
One by one the seals of the book are broken and with each of the
first four, a horse and rider appeared:
Revelation 6:1. . . . when the Lamb opened one of the seals . . .
Revelation 6:2. .. . behold a white horse: and he that sat on
him had a bow; and a crown . . . : and he went forth conquering . . .
Revelation 6:3. And when he had opened the second seal . . .
Revelation 6:4. . . . there went out another horse that was red:
and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from
the earth . . .
Revelation 6:5. And when he had opened the third seal, . . . lo a
black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his
hand.
Revelation 6:6. And I heard a voice . . . say, A measure of wheat
for a penny . . .
Revelation 6:7. And when he had opened the fourth seal, . . .
Revelation 6:8. . . . behold a pale horse: and his name that sat
on him was Death . . .
These are the "four horsemen of the apocalypse" representing the
variety of evils that were to descend upon the world (specifically upon
the Roman Empire, which was viewed by its populace as synonymous
with "the world") to mark the beginning of its dissolution and the
coming of the Messianic era.
The white horse and its rider seems to represent foreign invasion.
At least the bow is the virtual symbol of the Parthian raiders, who
since the time of Julius Caesar had been the terror of the east. In
1204
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
the days of Herod the Great, they had occupied Jerusalem, and at no
time thereafter were their forces very far to the cast.
The red horse and its rider also seem to signify a form of war. It
may well represent the bloody disorders of civil war and insurrection.
The black horse and its rider represent famine, for the price offered
for a measure of wheat ("a penny") is far higher than normal and
is so high in fact that the ordinary populace could not buy enough to
live.
The pale horse and its rider are named as "Death," but this is not
the kind of death in general that would follow war or famine. That is
taken care of by the first three horses. Rather Death represents death
by disease, as when we refer to the "Black Death," for instance.
In short, the four horsemen can be most briefly described as War,
Revolution, Famine, and Pestilence.
There are many who seek the meaning of the symbolism of Revela-
tion in the events that have happened in the centuries since the book
was written. To those, never did the four horsemen ride with such
effect as in the days of World War I. Not only was there the bloodiest
and most stupidly savage slaughter ever seen, on both western and
eastern fronts, but there was a revolution in Russia that affects us
even today, a famine in both Germany and Russia immediately after
the war, and a world-wide influenza pandemic in 1918 that killed more
people than the war did.
Never had War, Revolution, Famine, and Pestilence stalked ghastly
over all the world as in the years from 1914 to 1920.
An Hundred and Forty and Four Thousand
When the fifth seal is broken, the souls of the martyrs are revealed
waiting for judgment and when the sixth seal is broken, the physical
universe begins to crumble. It might seem that now the climax is
reached. The seventh seal ought to be broken and the great day of
judgment come. However, throughout the Book of Revelation there
is a strong reluctance, apparently, to let the climax come. Over and
over it is delayed.
The first delay comes at this point, for after the sixth seal is broken,
and before the seventh seal can be touched, there is a break:
REVELATION 1205
Revelation 7:1. ... I saw four angels . . .
Revelation 7:3. Saying, Hurt not the earth . . . till we have sealed
the servants of our God in their foreheads.
It was customary in Babylonia from the most ancient times to
use seals for identification. These were small cylindrical intaglios which
could be rolled upon the soft clay used by the Babylonians for a
writing surface. A characteristic picture would appear, serving the place
of signature on our own documents.
A slave might be similarly branded (as our cattle are out west) to
show indelibly who the master was. A characteristic brand would serve
the function of a seal. The picture presented here, then, is of the
righteous beings marked somehow (details are not given) with a sym-
bol (again not described) that identifies them as God's slaves to be
kept safe through the final disasters.
The number of those to be saved is given specifically:
Revelation 7:4. ... I heard the number of them which were
sealed . . . an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the
tribes of the children of Israel.
Because of the smallness of the number compared to the total
population of the Earth, the notion has arisen that very few are to
be saved. On the other hand, the number can't be taken literally.
The twelve tribes of Israel stand, figuratively, for all the righteous.
The number 144,000 is twelve times twelve times a thousand, and we
must consider the mystic significance of these numbers.
Just as seven probably derives its initial sacred character from the
fact that it represents the number of planets in the heavens, so twelve
probably derives its sacred character from the fact that there are twelve
months in the year. From this is derived the twelve signs of the zodiac
and the notion that with twelve one comes full circle. The number
144, which is twelve times twelve, is therefore completeness accen-
tuated. It represents all the righteous (12) of all the tribes (12) and
no one is left out.
As for one thousand, that was the largest number which possessed
a specific name in ancient times. The Greeks used the word "myrioi"
to signify ten thousand, but that is not really a name for a number.
It meant "innumerable" originally, which is the sense we use it for
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
when we speak of "a myriad objects." To multiply something by a
thousand was to make it as large as one conveniently could in the
language of the time. It follows that the number 144,000 does not
mean specifically that number but represents an emphatic way of
saying, "All the righteous! A large number of theml"
(It should be mentioned that the word "thousand" remained the
largest number-word right down into late medieval times. Only then
were numbers like "million" invented in Italy.)
Revelation goes on to expand on the mystical completeness of the
number by emphasizing that there are to be twelve thousand from
each of the twelve tribes, which are given in the following order:
Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Is-
sachar, Zebulon, Joseph, and Benjamin.
This is a strange list. Apparently the twelve sons of Jacob should
have been listed, but one of the names on the list is Manasseh, the
son of Joseph, and a grandson of Jacob. To make room for Manasseh,
one of the sons of Jacob would have to be omitted, and the one so
omitted is Dan.
This is very likely a mistake on the part of John or of some later
copyist. It may be that Man was accidentally written for Dan and
that a still later copyist assumed Man to be an abbreviation for Manas-
seh.
It is, however, difficult for some people to accept something as
prosaic as a copyist's error in the Bible, so that significance is sought
for even in the most trivial things. Some have suggested, for instance,
that Dan was deliberately omitted because Antichrist was to spring
from among those of that tribe.
The notion that the tribe of Dan was to give rise to Antichrist can
come only from the passage in the Testament of Jacob (see page I-116)
which goes:
Genesis 49:17. Dan shall be a serpent by the way . . .
It is farfetched to go from this metaphorical description of Dan as a
serpent (referring perhaps to the snake as a totemistic symbol of the
tribe in primitive times as the lion was for Judah and the wolf for
Benjamin) to the post-Exilic identification of the serpent in the garden
of Eden with Satan, and thence with Antichrist— but all this is an easy
leap for mystics.
REVELATION 1207
These righteous now stand before the Lamb and all their sufferings
are washed away in what has become a famous phrase:
Revelation 7:14. . . . they . . . came out of great tribulation, and
have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the
Lamb.
Euphrates
And now at last, the seventh seal is broken and one might expect
the climax of the vision to approach, but it still doesn't. Instead a
new series of seven events begins in the form of seven angels, each
of whom blows a trumpet in turn, with gruesome disasters following
each trumpet sound. When the fifth angel blows his trumpet, hell it-
self opens:
Revelation 9:2. . . . and there arose a smoke out of the pit . . .
Revelation 9:3. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon
the earth . ■ .
• • • •
Revelation 9:7. And the shapes of the locusts were like unto
horses prepared unto battle . . . and their faces were as the faces
of men.
The picture being drawn by John here is clearly inspired by the
great tenor of the east— the Parthian cavalry, swooping in like a cloud
of locusts, dealing their deadly strokes and fading away before they
could be properly opposed. The Roman general, Crassus, was defeated
in this manner in eastern Syria in 53 b.c. That defeat had never been
properly avenged and it was never forgotten.
The characteristic weapons of the Parthian horsemen were their
bows, which they could use with great effect. Even when retreating,
they could rise in their saddles and shoot, in unison, one rapid volley
of arrows back at their pursuers. This "Parthian shot" was often quite
effective. It is to such tactics that Revelation may be referring, when
they speak of the locusts as:
Revelation 9:10. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and
there were stings in their tails . . .
1208
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
When the sixth angel sounds his trumpet, the picture of the Parthian
cavalry is continued. The sixth angel is instructed:
Revelation 9:14. . . . Loose the four angels which are bound in
the great river Euphrates.
The Euphrates was a boundary in a double sense. First it was the
boundary of Israel in the great days of David and Solomon and had
been the ideal boundary of Israel ever since. Second, it was the
boundary of the Roman realm during most of the days of its empire.
The "angels" bound in the Euphrates controlled the enemy hosts on
the other side.
The army controlled by these angels of the Euphrates was made
to seem unbelievably numerous— an impression made on the awed in-
fantry when they were the object of the sudden onrush of a contingent
of horsemen:
Revelation 9:16. And the number of the army of the horsemen
were two hundred thousand thousand . . .
This is the number obtained if one makes use of the Greek "myrioi"
as a synonym of innumerability, emphasizes it by repetition ("an in-
numerable, innumerable quantity"), and then doubles it for good
measure. If "myrioi" is taken as ten thousand, it becomes two myriad
myriad or two hundred thousand thousand, or two hundred million— a
number equal to the entire population of the United States.
The Great City
Then before the seventh and final trumpet is sounded there is an-
other digression and the temporary triumph of evil is described.
This temporary triumph represents the persecution of Domitian,
then proceeding. The language used in describing this persecution
reaches back to the Old Testament, as does everything in Revelation.
The oppression of the Church by Rome is therefore cast in the terms
Daniel used in describing the oppression of the Temple by the Seleu-
cids:
Revelation 11:2. . . . the court which is without the temple . . .
is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under
foot forty and two months.
REVELATION 1209
This is the period of three and a half years during which the Temple
was profaned in the time of Antiochus IV. This use of Temple
symbolism has been advanced as evidence that the Temple was still
standing at the time Revelation was written and that the book was
composed, therefore, during Nero's persecution. However, Revelation
uses Old Testament symbolism so consistently, that such a deduction
doesn't cany conviction. John would speak of the Temple as represent-
ing the Church whether the Temple stood or not, and his readers
would understand his allegory.
Two prophets are described:
Revelation 11:3. And I will give power unto my two witnesses . . .
Revelation 11 17. And when they shall have finished their testimony,
the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall . . . loll
them.
Revelation 11:8. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of
the great city . . .
This continues the allegory, indicating that the Church will be
persecuted by the forces of Satan and temporarily be defeated. The
particular form of the allegory may, however, be influenced by par-
ticular events. Some have suggested that the two witnesses may be
Paul and Peter, the apostles martyred, according to tradition, by Nero,
who could very well be described as "the beast that ascendeth out
of the bottomless pit." In that case, the "great city" would, of course,
be Rome.
A later copyist may have felt the great city would have to be
Jerusalem and added the phrase:
Revelation 11:8. . . . the great city, . . . where also our Lord was
crucified.
The Dragon
Now the seventh trumpet is sounded, but there is still no climax.
Instead, a new allegory representing the battle of good and evil is
introduced and cast into terms of Babylonian mythology:
1210
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Revelation 12:1. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;
a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and
upon her head a crown of twelve stars . . .
In Babylonian mythology, this would be a sun-goddess, the twelve
stars representing the signs of the zodiac through which the Sun passes
each year. To John, it would represent the idealized Israel, the twelve
stars representing the twelve tribes. The woman was in labor and gave
birth to the Messiah:
Revelation 12:5. And she brought forth a man child, who was to
rule all nations with a rod of iron . . .
But there was an opponent also in heaven, and this, too, appeared
in Babylonian terms:
Revelation 12:3. And there appeared another wonder in heaven;
and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns,
and seven crowns upon his heads.
The dragon represents chaos. It is the Babylonian Tiamat or the
Hebrew Leviathan, which had to be defeated in the beginning in
order to allow the ordered universe to be created, and would have to be
defeated again in the end, in order to allow the created universe to
come to an appropriate end. One might expect the mystic number
of seven heads and seven crowns to be carried through to seven homs.
The rather inappropriate number of ten horns harks back to Daniel's
fourth beast, whose ten horns represents the ten Seleucid kings down
to Antiochus IV (see page I-609).
The dragon also represents Satan or Antichrist. He is prepared to
devour the Messiah at the instant of birth, but the Messiah has all
the heavenly hosts on his side:
Revelation 12:7. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his
angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his
angels,
Revelation 12:8. And prevailed not . . .
Revelation 12:9. And the great dragon was cast out, that old
serpent, called the Devil, and Satan . . . and his angels were cast
out with him.
REVELATION 1211
This reflects the legends that grew up in post-Exilic times under
Persian influence. God and Satan led opposing armies in the battle of
good versus evil. Only in Revelation, however, does this Persian no-
tion of dualism receive the canonical nod.
Milton, in his epic Paradise Lost, begins his description of the fall
of Man at the very moment when Satan and his angels (now turned
into demons) have been hurled into hell and are slowly recovering
their senses after the shock of the fall.
Satan, cast to Earth, and unable to prevail against God, could never-
theless vent his spleen against those righteous men on Earth:
Revelation 12:17. And the dragon was wroth with the woman,
and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep
the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
It is that, of course, which, in the eye of the writer of Revelation,
explains all the troubles of the Church.
The Beast
Satan's malevolence sharpens, out of desperation, as the end of the
world approaches and he (symbolized as the dragon) passes his powers
over to an Earthly entity, represented in the form of Daniel's beast—
the well-known allegorical representation of the pagan empires that
oppressed the righteous (see page I-609).
Revelation 13:1. . . . I . . . saw a beast rise up out of the sea,
having seven heads and ten horns . . . and upon his heads the
name of blasphemy.
Revelation 13:2. . . . and the dragon gave him his power . . .
Revelation 13:3. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded
to death; and his deadly wound was healed . . .
The beast (with the usual seven heads and ten horns) is, of course,
the Roman Empire, which had initially impinged upon Judean con-
sciousness from across the Mediterranean Sea.
The statement that upon its heads are "the name of blasphemy"
refers to the demand that the emperors be worshipped as gods. This
emperor-worship was an official state ritual that was little more than
1212
ASIMOV's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
a formality designed to bind together the citizens of the empire which
were otherwise so diverse in language, custom, and religion. It was a
unifying gesture equivalent to our own salute to the flag and recital
of the pledge of allegiance.
It was the refusal of Christians to accede to the perfunctory em-
peror-worshipping ritual that made them suspect, not because of their
religion but because of the suspicion that they were traitors to the
state. This should not strike us as strange, for there are Christian sects
these days who refuse the salute to the flag and the pledge of alle-
giance, claiming them to be idolatrous acts— and there also exist super-
patriots who are offended at this and who take strong action against
such sects when in a position to do so.
The healed wound that had killed one of the heads may refer to
Nero. Actually, of the twelve Roman Emperors (counting Julius Cae-
sar) who ruled up to the time that Revelation was written, no less
than six had died by assassination or suicide: Julius Caesar, Caligula,
Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Claudius may have been poisoned
and Domitian was fated to be assassinated. (Only Augustus, Tiberius,
Vespasian, and Titus died undoubtedly of natural causes.)
Nevertheless it was Nero whose death would be most significant to
Christians, at least up to the time of Domitian. His suicide would be
marked allegorically on the beast. The fact that the Roman Empire
survived and that new emperors reigned would be signified by the
fact that the wound was healed.
The beast representing the Roman Empire is pictured as being
worshipped by all men, but the righteous. Those who worshipped were
allowed to live in peace and security; those who refused to worship
(the Christians) were persecuted. Just as God sealed those righteous
who belonged to him, so did the beast (the Roman Empire) seal
those who indulged in emperor-worship and therefore belonged to
him:
Revelation 13:15. . . . as many as would not worship the image
of the beast should be killed.
Revelation 13:16. And he [the beast] causeth all ... to receive
a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Revelation 13:17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that
had the mark . . .
REVELATION 1213
The Number of the Beast
Even the Roman Empire is a kind of abstraction and the writer
of Revelation zeroes in on a particular man, whom he is reluctant to
name— perhaps because if he were to do so, he would be subject to
the charge of treason and the punishment of execution. Cautiously
he identifies the man in such a way that his more knowledgeable
readers will know exactly whom he means and yet the law will not
be able to touch him:
Revelation 13:18. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understand-
ing count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man;
and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
To understand this we must realize that down through medieval
times it was common to use letters of the alphabet to signify numbers.
The Jews, Greek, and Romans all did this. We are most familiar with
the Roman numerals where I=i, V=5, X=io, L=50, C=ioo,
D=5oo, and M=iooo. It follows that words made up of these letters
would also be seen to have a kind of numerical value. If an individual
were named Dill McDix, for instance, one could set each letter equal to
a number, add them, and reach a total of 2212.
This is hard to do in English since only a few letters of the Latin
alphabet are assigned numerical values. In the Greek and Hebrew
languages, however, every letter was assigned a numerical value. Nat-
urally, then, all words in Greek or Hebrew would have numerical
meaning.
Jewish mystics in Greek and Roman times assumed that the in-
spired words of the Bible had significance numerically as well as
literally and spent much time on the analysis of such numbers. This
form of endeavor was called "gematria," a corruption of the Greek
"geometria" (and our "geometry").
The "number of the beast" is an example of such gematria, the
only significant example in the Bible. Commentators have considered
virtually every possible candidate for the beast and the one most
frequently mentioned is Nero. If his name is written in the Greek
form— Neron— and if his title Caesar is added and if Neron Caesar
1214
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
is written in Hebrew letters, then the total numerical value is indeed
666. If the final "n" is left out, the total is 616, and some old manu-
scripts of Revelation have 616 rather than 666 as the number of the
beast.
And yet Nero seems a poor candidate if the book were written in
95. He had been dead a quarter of a century and his death had brought
no great change. Within the year Vespasian had come to the throne
and he and his son Titus had given Rome a dozen years of good
and humane government.
At the time Revelation was being written, however, Domitian, Ves-
pasian's younger son, was on the throne and his persecution of the
Christians was in high gear. It would be natural to refer elliptically
to the living, persecuting emperor, and there is probably some way in
which Domitian's name and title could be so written as to add up to
666. It may be that he bore a nickname, commonly used by Christians,
with a total numerical value of 666, a number which had its own
mystic significance, for it fell short of the mystic perfection of 7 three
times. For that reason 666 was the acme of imperfection and a
suitable number with which to represent Antichrist.
Armageddon
Against the gTeat city ruled by the beast, and his army of men
wearing his mark, are the heavenly hosts and the 144,000 righteous
ones bearing the seal of God. The victory of the good is certain, for
the triumphant song in heaven is:
Revelation 14:8. . . . Babylon is fallen, is (alien, that great city . . .
Babylon is, of course, Rome; and Rome will be destroyed. This
destruction is heralded by yet a third set of seven acts of destruction.
Seven vials of plagues are emptied upon the earth, one at a time, each
bringing its own horrible destruction.
As the hosts of the beast are being remorselessly punished in this
manner, the scene is set for the final battle between good and evil:
Revelation 16:16. And he [the beast] gathered them together
into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
REVELATION 1215
Armageddon is, more properly, "Har-Magedon" or "the Mount of
Megiddo." Megiddo, a town just south of the Kishon River and fifty-
five miles north of Jerusalem, was indeed the site of two important
battles. The first took place in the fifteenth century b.c. when the
great Egyptian pharaoh, Thutmose III, defeated a league of Canaanite
cities there. This, however, was centuries before the Israelites entered
Canaan, and was beyond their historic horizon.
Nearly nine centuries after Thutmose's victory, a battle was fought
at Megiddo which was very much in the Jewish view and consciousness.
It was between King Josiah of Judah and Pharaoh-nechoh of Egypt
in 608 b.c.
2 Kings 23:29. . . . Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up against
the king of Assyria . . . and king Josiah went against him; and he
[Pharaoh-nechoh] slew him [Josiah] at Megiddo . . .
The death of the great reforming king made Megiddo a place that
particularly symbolized calamity and disaster. The utter destruction of
the hosts of evil there would balance the earlier destruction of good
in the person of Josiah.
Babylon
The approach of the end is once again interrupted for still another
vision. One of the angels says:
Revelation 17:1. . . . Come hither; I will shew unto thee . . .
the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Revelation 17:3. So he carried me away . . . info the wilderness:
and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of the
names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Revelation 17:4. And the woman was arrayed in purple and
scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and
pearls, . . .
Revelation 17:5. And upon her forehead was a name written . . .
BABYLON THE GREAT . . .
Again, Babylon represents Rome in all its luxury and power. The
"many waters" upon which the woman sits is taken from the Old
1216
ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Testament description of the real Babylon, which was a city of canals.
Thus, Jeremiah says:
Jeremiah 51:12. . . . the Lord . . . spake against the inhabitants
of Babylon.
Jeremiah 51:13. O thou that dwellest upon many waters . . .
The author of Revelation, unable to resist the Old Testament quota-
tion, must reinterpret it now and docs so rather ineptly:
Revelation 17:15. And he [the angel] saith unto me, The waters
which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multi-
tudes, and nations, and tongues . . .
The seven heads of the beast are finally explained in such a way
as to make the real identity of "Babylon" unmistakable:
Revelation 17:9. . . . The seven heads are seven mountains, on
which the woman sitteth.
The interpretation goes on:
Revelation 17:10. And there are seven kings: jive are fallen, and
one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he
must continue a short space.
Revelation 17:11. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is
the eighth. . . .
There seems no way of clearly working out this passage in the light
of the reign of Domitian, but it can be dealt with, if it were spoken
during the reign of Nero or very shortly after. Possibly the writer of
Revelation is making use here of a passage of an earlier apocalypse
that was indeed prepared in Nero's time, and did it without modifying
its figures.
If we go back to Nero's time, we find that he is the sixth emperor
(if we count Julius Caesar as the first). In that case, five emperors
have "fallen" and "one is" (Nero). The seventh who "must continue
a short space" would be Galba, who briefly reigned after Nero's death
and was then killed by the praetorian guard, ushering in a short
period of anarchy before Vespasian took over.
During this period, it was widely supposed among the common
people of the empire that Nero was not really dead but had fled to
REVELATION 1217
safety and would return. There were several "false Neros" who tried
to capitalize on this belief in that year.
It may be Nero, then, that in the view of the earlier apocalypse was
the beast "that was, and is not." When he returned, he would be the
eighth emperor.
But Babylon/Rome is to fall. The final battle of good and evil
(presumably at Armageddon) takes place:
Revelation 19:20. And the beast was taken . . . and them that
y/onhipped his image. These . . . were cast alive into a lake of
fire . . .
Revelation 19:21. And the remnant were slain with the sword . . ,
Gog and Magog
Now after the long series of portents, visions, disasters, and symbols,
the end of history has come, and the Messianic age opens. Even that,
however, is not to be truly permanent.
Revelation 20:1. And I saw an angel come down from heaven . . .
Revelation 20:2. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent,
which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Revelation 20:3. . . . and after that he must be loosed a little
season.
Why should there be this thousand-year "millennium" (see page
1 1 8 1 ) to be followed by still another upheaval and an anticlimactic
second battle of good and evil?
There may be a mystic symmetry here. The Earth was created in
six days, followed by a seventh day of rest, according to the first chapter
of Genesis. But for God a day is like a thousand years (see page 1 167).
Perhaps, then, the Earth's duration is to parallel the week of creation
with a millennium standing for each day.
First the earth will endure six millennia of labor, strife, evil, and sin,
one for each of the six days of creation. Then, for the seventh day of
rest, the Earth will spend one millennium under the Messiah. Only
then, when the Sabbath millennium is over, can the world indeed come
to an end:
1218 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Revelation 20:7. . . . Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Revelation 20:8. And shall go out to deceive the nations . . .
Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle . . .
This is an echo of Ezekiel's apocalyptic vision of the last battle:
Ezekiel 38:2. Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of
Magog . . .
The forces of evil are again defeated and destroyed and now, finally,
all is over, even the Sabbath millennium, and the day of judgment is
come at last:
Revelation 20:12. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand
before God; . . . and the dead were judged . . .
Jerusalem
A second creation, a perfect one, now replaces the old imperfect
one:
Revelation 21:1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:
for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; . . .
Revelation 21:2. And 1 John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down from God . . .
The new Jerusalem is filled with the triumphant symbolism of the
number twelve both in its old and new meanings:
Revelation 21:10. . . . the holy Jerusalem . . .
Revelation 21:12. . . . had a wall great and high, and had twelve
gates . . . and names written thereon, which ate the names of the
twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
Revelation 21:14. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,
and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
And when the description of the city in the most glowing possible
terms is completed, the writer of the book quotes an angel to remind
the reader emphatically that all that is predicted is rapidly to come
to pass:
REVELATION 1219
Revelation 22:6. . . . These sayings are faithful and true: and the
Lord God . . . sent his angel to shew . . . the things which must
shortly be done.
Revelation 22:7. Behold, I come quickly . . .
And with that assurance— still unfulfilled nearly two thousand years
later— the New Testament ends.
DATES OF INTEREST
IN BIBLICAL HISTORY
(Old and New Testament)
note: Many of the dates given in this table are approximate, or controversial.
B.C.
8500 First cities established in Middle East.
5000 Jericho already existing.
4004 Archbishop Ussher's date of creation.
3761 Traditional Jewish date of creation.
3600 Sumerian city-states in existence.
3100 Egypt united under single rule, 1st dynasty founded.
3000 Canaanites enter Canaan.
2700 Assyrian cities come into existence.
2570 Great Pyramid built in Egypt.
2500 Bronze Age reaches Canaan.
2264 Sargon of Agade founds Akkadian Empire.
2050 11th dynasty rules Egypt; 3rd dynasty rules Ur.
2000 Beginning of patriarchal age in Canaan (Abraham).
1971 Sesostris I rules Egypt.
1900 Babylon begins to dominate Tigris-Euphrates valley; Sumerian
city-states decline.
1730 Hyksos enter Egypt.
1700 Hammurabi rules Babylon.
1650 Israelites in Egypt (Jacob, Joseph).
1570 Hyksos expelled from Egypt.
1500 Assyria becomes independent kingdom.
DATES OF INTEREST IN BIBLICAL HISTORY
1490 Thutmose III rules Egypt.
1479 Thutmose III defeats Canaanites at Megiddo.
1475 Mitanni kingdom flourishing.
1450 Tyre founded by colonists from Sidon.
1400 Mycenaean Greeks at height of power.
1397 Amenhotep III rules Egypt, which is at height of its prosperity.
1390 Hittites at height of their power.
1370 Ikhnaton rules Egypt; attempts monotheistic reform; Egyptian
power begins to decline; kingdoms of Moab, Ammon, and
Edom established.
1290 Rameses II rules Egypt; oppression of the Israelites.
1275 Assyria conquers the Mitanni kingdom, as Assyria enters its
first period of strength.
1250 Shalmaneser I rules Assyria.
1235 Tukulti-Ninurta I [Nimrod] rules Assyria.
1223 Merneptah rules Egypt; ancient world convulsed by migrations
of peoples.
1211 Death of Merneptah; possibly time of Exodus (Moses).
1200 Hittite kingdom destroyed. Tarshish founded by colonists from
Tyre.
1190 Rameses III rules Egypt and defeats Philistines.
1184 Trojan War.
1170 Israelites enter Canaan; Philistines settle coast (Joshua).
1150 Barak and Deborah defeat Sisera; period of judges.
1116 Tiglath-Pileser I rules Assyria.
1100 Gideon defeats Midianites; Greeks begin to settle Asia Minor
coast.
1093 Death of Tiglath-Pileser I; Assyria in decline.
1080 Philistines defeat Israelites at Aphek; Shiloh destroyed.
1040 Samuel judges the tribes.
1028 Saul rules Israel.
1013 Philistines defeat Israelites at Mount Gilboa; Saul and Jonathan
killed; David rules Judah.
1006 David rules united Israel-Judah.
1000 David establishes capital at Jerusalem; Aramaeans begin infiltra-
tion of Syria.
980 David's empire at peak.
973 Death of David; Solomon rules united Israel-Judah.
1222 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
969 Hiram rules Tyre.
962 Completion of Temple by Solomon.
950 Rezin founds kingdom of Damascus (Syria).
933 Death of Solomon; breakup of Israel-Judah; Jeroboam I rules
Israel; Rehoboam rules Judah.
928 Shishak of Egypt loots Jerusalem.
917 Abijam rules Judah.
915 Asa rules Judah.
912 Nadab rules Israel.
911 Baasha overthrows Nadab, seizes rule of Israel.
888 Elah rules Israel; overthrown by Zimri.
887 Omri rules Israel; founds Samaria.
883 Asshumasirpal rules Assyria, which experiences revival.
880 Omri conquers Moab.
875 Ahab rules Israel; Jehoshaphat rules Judah; career of Elijah.
859 Shalmaneser III rules Assyria.
858 Ahab wars with Syrians.
854 Syrian-Israelite coalition holds off Assyria at Karkar.
853 Battle of Ramoth-gilead; death of Ahab; Ahaziah rules Israel.
852 Jehoram rules Israel; career of Elisha.
851 Jehoram (of Judah) rules Judah; J document in written form.
850 Mesha of Moab gains independence.
844 Ahaziah rules Judah.
843 Jehu rebels successfully and rules Israel; Athaliah usurps power
in Judah; Hazael rules Syria and brings it to height of its
power.
842 Jehu pays tribute to Assyria.
837 Jehoash rules Judah.
824 Death of Shalmaneser III of Assyria, which enters another period
of decline.
816 Jehoahaz rules Israel.
814 Carthage founded by colonists from Tyre.
800 Jehoash (of Israel) rules Israel; death of Elisha.
797 Amaziah rules Judah.
785 Jeroboam II rules Israel; Israel at height of its power.
780 Azariah (Uzziah) rules Judah; Judah at height of its power.
760 Amos prophesies.
753 Rome founded.
DATES OF INTEREST IN BIBLICAL HISTORY 1223
750 Hosea prophesies; E document in written form.
745 Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul) rules Assyria; its power revives.
744 Death of Jeroboam II; gathering anarchy in Israel.
745 Tiglath-Pileser III conquers Urartu (Ararat).
740 Jotham rules Judah; Isaiah begins prophesying.
738 Pekahiah rules Israel, which is now tributary to Assyria.
737 Pekah rules Israel.
736 Ahaz rules Judah.
734 Pekah attempts to form coalition against Assyria; attacks Judah.
732 Hoshea rules Israel; Tiglath-Pileser III takes Damascus and
brings Syrian kingdom to an end.
730 Micah prophesies.
726 Shalmaneser V rules Assyria.
725 Shalmaneser V lays siege to Samaria.
722 Sargon II usurps throne of Assyria and takes Samaria; Israelites
carried off into exile; northern kingdom comes to an end.
720 Hezekiah rules Judah.
705 Sennacherib rules Assyria, makes Nineveh his capital.
703 Babylon under Merodach-baladan rebels against Assyria.
701 Sennacherib lays siege to Jerusalem.
700 Deioces founds Median kingdom.
693 Manasseh rules Judah, which is now tributary to Assyria.
681 Sennacherib assassinated; Esarhaddon rules Assyria and brings
it to the peak of its power.
671 Esarhaddon invades and controls Egypt.
668 Asshurbanipal rules Assyria; establishes library at Nineveh.
663 Asshurbanipal sacks Thebes, ancient Egyptian capital.
652 Psamtik I rules Egypt, which is now free of Assyria.
640 Asshurbanipal defeats and destroys Elam.
638 Josiah rules Judah.
631 Cyrene founded by colonists from Greece.
630 Zephaniah prophesies.
626 Jeremiah begins to prophesy.
625 Asshurbanipal dies; gathering anarchy in Assyria and Nabopo-
lassar seizes control of Babylonia.
620 Discovery of Book of Deuteronomy in the Temple followed by
Yahvist reform in Judah; beginnings of Greek philosophy in
Miletus.
1224 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
615 Nahum prophesies.
612 Nabopolassar takes Nineveh; last Assyrian holdouts at Haran.
610 Necho (Pharaoh-nechoh) rules Egypt.
608 Necho defeats Judah at Megiddo; Josiah killed and Jehoiakim
rules Judah; Jeremiah delivers Temple Sermon.
605 Babylonians defeat Necho at Carchemish; Nabopolassar dies;
Nebuchadnezzar rules Babylonia and crushes last Assyrian
stronghold; Habakkuk prophesies.
597 Judean rebellion crushed by Nebuchadnezzar; first Babylonian
Exile; Zedekiah rules Judah.
593 Ezekiel begins to prophesy in captivity; Psamtik II rules Egypt
and places Jewish garrison at Elephantine; Astyages rules
Media.
588 Apries (Pharaoh-hophra) rules Egypt.
587 Zedekiah rebels against Nebuchadnezzar.
586 Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem and destroys the Temple; sec-
ond Babylonian Exile; Davidic Dynasty comes to an end;
Gedaliah assassinated; Book of Lamentations written.
585 Nebuchadnezzar lays siege to Tyre.
573 Nebuchadnezzar raises siege of Tyre.
569 Aahmes rules Egypt.
568 Nebuchadnezzar invades Egypt unsuccessfully.
562 Death of Nebuchadnezzar; Evil-merodach rules Babylonia; var-
ious documents being combined by Jewish scribes in Babylon
to form the historical books of the Old Testament.
560 Amel-Marduk assassinated; Nergal-ashur-usur rules Babylonia;
Croesus rules Lydia, which is at its peak of power.
556 Nabonidus rules Babylonia; his son, Belshazzar, is co-ruler.
550 Cyrus overthrows Astyages of Media; founds Persian Empire.
546 Cyrus conquers Lydia; brings Lydian kingdom to an end.
540 Second Isaiah prophesies.
538 Cyrus takes Babylon and ends Babylonian kingdom; Jews al-
lowed to return to Judea and first group under Sheshbazzar
does so.
530 Death of Cyrus; Cambyses rules Persia.
525 Cambyses invades and conquers Egypt.
521 Darius I rules Persia.
520 Haggai and Zechariah prophesy; Zerubbabel takes over leader-
ship of Jewish returnees.
DATES OF INTEREST IN BIBLICAL HISTORY 1225
516 Second Temple dedicated.
509 Rome evicts last king; Republic founded.
500 Obadiah prophesies; Greek cities of Asia Minor revolt against
Persia.
490 Persian expedition defeated at Marathon by Athens.
486 Death of Darius I; Xerxes I (Ahasuerus) rules Persia.
480 Persian expedition defeated at Salamis by united Greece;
Tarshish destroyed by Carthage.
465 Xerxes I assassinated; Artaxerxes I rules Persia.
460 Malachi prophesies.
459 Ezra in Jerusalem; historical books in final form.
450 Book of Ruth written; Third Isaiah prophesies.
440 Nehemiah in Jerusalem.
437 Walls of Jerusalem completed.
407 Jewish Temple at Elephantine destroyed by Egypt.
400 Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah written; Joel prophe-
sies.
300 Book of Song of Solomon and Book of Jonah written.
275 Apocalyptic portion of Book of Zechariah written.
250 Book of Ecclesiastes written; Book of Proverbs reaches final
form; Septuagint in preparation in Alexandria.
180 Book of Ecclesiasticus written.
165 Book of Daniel written.
150 Book of Esther written; Book of Psalms reaches present form.
147 Parthians take Babylonia.
146 Rome annexes Macedonia; sacks Corinth.
145 Death of Alexander Balas and Ptolemy VI; Demetrius II rules
Seleucid Empire. Pharisees and Sadducees begin to appear as
separate parties.
143 Antiochus VI rules Seleucid Empire.
142 Death of Jonathan; his brother Simon rules over independent
Judea.
141 Last Seleucid soldiers leave Jerusalem.
139 Parthians take Demetrius II prisoner.
138 Antiochus VII rules Seleucid Empire; Attalus III rules Perga-
mum.
134 Simon of Judea assassinated; John Hyrcanus rules Judea.
133 Antiochus VII temporarily occupies Jerusalem. Rome annexes
Pergamum, makes it province of Asia.
1226 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
129 John Hyrcanus conquers Moab and Samaria; destroys Samaritan
temple. Antiochus VII dies in battle against Parthians; Deme-
trius II released and again rules Seleucid Empire.
125 Antiochus VIII rules Seleucid Empire.
104 John Hyrcanus dies; Aristobulus rules Judea and assumes title
of king.
103 Alexander Jannaeus rules Judea; Maccabean kingdom at peak;
Pharisees in opposition.
100 Book of Jubilees, Prayer of Manasses, Testament of Twelve
Patriarchs, Book of Enoch, First Book of Maccabees written.
86 Roman army sacks Athens.
84 Roman army sacks Ephesus.
79 Alexander Jannaeus dies; civil war in Judea; John Hyrcanus II
high priest.
75 Book of Wisdom of Solomon written.
67 Antipater of Idumea in virtual control of Judea; Rome annexes
Crete and Cyrene.
65 Rome annexes Bithynia in Asia Minor.
64 Rome annexes last remnant of Seleucid Empire.
63 Rome (Pompey) takes Jerusalem; Maccabean kingdom comes
to end.
58 Rome annexes Cyprus.
53 Roman army under Crassus defeated by Parthians at Carrhae.
48 Julius Caesar defeats Pompey and controls Rome. Psalms of
Solomon written.
44 Julius Caesar assassinated.
42 Octavian and Mark Antony defeat Caesar's assassins at Philippi.
40 Parthians occupy Judea; Antigonus Mattathias high priest.
37 Herod the Great takes Jerusalem and marries Mariamne the
Maccabean; Aristobulus III high priest.
35 Herod executes Aristobulus III, last of the Maccabean high
priests.
30 Octavian defeats Mark Antony and Cleopatra at Actium; con-
trols Rome.
27 Octavian assumes title of Augustus; inaugurates the Roman
Empire.
25 Rome annexes Pamphilia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Galatia in
Asia Minor.
DATES OF INTEREST IK BIBLICAL HISTORY 1227
23 Herod executes Mariamne.
20 Herod starts rebuilding the Temple; Hillel leader of the Phari-
sees.
7 Herod has his sons by Mariamne executed.
4 Birth of Jesus. Death of Herod the Great; Herod Archelaus rules
Judea; Herod Antipas rules Galilee; Herod Philip rules Iturea.
AS).
1 Herod Philip builds Bethsaida.
6 Herod Archelaus deposed; Judea becomes procuratorial province
with capital at Caesarea and Caponius as procurator. Annas
high priest.
7 Census in Judea, with consequent disorders.
10 Birth of Saul [Paul]. "Assumption of Moses" written.
14 Augustus dies; Tiberius becomes Roman Emperor; Valerius
Gratus becomes Procurator of Judea and deposes Annas.
18 Joseph Caiaphas high priest; Rome annexes Cappadocia in
Asia Minor.
20 Herod Antipas founds Tiberias.
26 Pontius Pilate becomes Procurator of Judea.
27 Herod Antipas marries Herodias; John the Baptist begins to
preach.
29 John the Baptist imprisoned and executed; Jesus crucified.
30 The Apostles speak with tongues at Pentecost.
34 Stephen is stoned to death; Saul [Paul] persecutes the Chris-
tians; death of Herod Philip.
35 Pontius Pilate massacres Samaritans at Mount Gerizim.
36 Pontius Pilate ends term as Procurator of Judea; Marcellus
procurator. Caiaphas deposed as high priest; Jonathan high
priest.
37 Saul [Paul] converted to Christianity. Tiberius dies; Caligula
becomes Roman Emperor; Theophilus high priest.
39 Saul [Paul] escapes from Damascus and makes first appearance
in Jerusalem as Christian. Herod Antipas deposed. Caligula
attempts to initiate worship of himself in the Temple.
41 Caligula assassinated; Claudius becomes Roman Emperor. All
1228 ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
Judea united under Herod Agrippa I; Death of Philo of
Alexandria.
43 James son of Zebedee executed; Peter imprisoned. Church at
Antioch flourishes; followers of Jesus first called Christians;
Saul [Paul] visits Jerusalem during famine; Rome annexes
Lycia in Asia Minor.
44 Death of Herod Agrippa I. Judea again procuratorial province;
Cuspius Fadus procurator.
45 Saul [Paul] on first missionary voyage.
46 Tiberius Alexander becomes Procurator of Judea.
48 Council of Jerusalem; Ventidius Cumanus becomes Procurator
of Judea.
49 Claudius temporarily evicts Jews from Rome; Paul on second
missionary voyage.
50 Paul in Europe; writes Epistles to the Thessalonians.
52 Death of Gamaliel the Pharisee; Paul appears before Gallio,
Procurator of Achaia; Antonius Felix becomes Procurator of
Judea.
53 Herod Agrippa II rules Galilee; Apollos appears at Ephesus.
54 Paul on third missionary voyage. Claudius dies; Nero becomes
Roman Emperor.
55 Paul writes Epistle to the Galatians; imprisoned in Caesarea.
56 Paul writes Epistles to the Corinthians.
58 Paul writes Epistle to the Romans; arrested in Jerusalem.
59 Paul tried before Felix.
61 Porcius Festus becomes Procurator of Judea. Paul preaches be-
fore Herod Agrippa II.
62 Paul imprisoned in Rome; writes Epistles to the Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Annas high priest; has
James the brother of Jesus stoned to death; Lucceius Albinus
becomes Procurator of Judea and deposes Annas.
63 Rome annexes Pontus in Asia Minor.
64 Great fire at Rome; Nero persecutes Christians; Peter and Paul
executed. (Paul released according to one theory.) Gessius
Florus becomes Procurator of Judea.
65 Paul writes First Epistle to Timothy and Epistle to Titus.
66 Jewish rebellion breaks out in Judea and in Alexandria; Ves-
pasian and his son Titus lead Roman armies in Judea.
DATES OF INTEREST IN BIBLICAL HISTORY 1229
67 Paul writes Second Epistle to Timothy and is executed; Ves-
pasian conquers Galilee and the historian, Josephus, is taken
prisoner.
68 Nero commits suicide; Galba becomes Roman Emperor.
69 Otho and Vitellius are Roman Emperors briefly; Vespasian be-
comes Roman Emperor.
70 Titus takes Jerusalem, destroys Temple; Gospel of St. Mark
written.
71 Vespasian and Titus celebrate joint triumph in Rome; Arch of
Titus constructed.
75 Gospel of St. Matthew written.
79 Vespasian dies; Titus becomes Roman Emperor.
80 Gospel of St. Luke and Book of Acts written; Epistle to the
Hebrews written.
81 Titus dies; Doniitian becomes Roman Emperor.
90 Domitian initiates Christian persecution; epistles of James, Peter,
John and Jude written; Jewish rabbis gather at Jamnia to
establish Jewish canon.
95 Book of Revelation and Book of 2 Esdras written.
96 Domitian assassinated; Nerva becomes Roman Emperor.
98 Nerva dies; Trajan becomes Roman Emperor. Roman Empire
reaches greatest extent.
100 Gospel of St. John written. Letter of Bamch, Epistle of Jeremy,
and Martyrdom of Isaiah written. Death of Herod Agrippa II.
115 Jews in Cyrene revolt and are crushed.
117 Trajan dies; Hadrian becomes Roman Emperor.
132 Jews in Judea revolt.
135 Last Jewish stronghold crushed and Jewish history, as a nation,
ends for eighteen centuries; Jerusalem renamed Aelia Capito-
lina and sanctuary to Jupiter is built on the site of the
Temple.
150 First two chapters of 2 Esdras written.
226 Parthian kingdom ends. Sassanid Dynasty founds new Persian
Empire.
235 Roman Emperor, Alexander Severus, assassinated. Roman Em-
pire sinks into anarchy.
240 Shapur I rules Persia.
259 Shapur I captures Roman Emperor, Valerian, in battle.
260 Famine sweeps Egypt; last two chapters of 2 Esdras written.
1231)
ASIMOv's GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
268 Roman Empire, under Claudius II, begins recovery.
284 Diocletian becomes Roman Emperor; reorganizes the empire.
303 Constantine I becomes Roman Emperor; begins process of
making empire Christian.
400 St. Jerome prepares Vulgate (Latin version of the Bible).
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
Volume One, The Old Testament
Page numbers refer to pages in Volume One and are set in italics.
Acts*
7 : 45-M7
12:4-139
15:20- 160
Amos
1:1-634
4:1 - 181
5:18-637
5:21-637
5:22-637
5:23-637
5:25-637
5:26-636
7:9-638
7:10-638
7:12-638
7:13-638
7:14-634
7:15-636
8:9-636
9:7-199
Baruch
1:1-567
1:2-567
Bel and the Dragon
1 : 1 - 62 1
1:33-622
1 Chronicles
1:1-399
2:4-401
2:15-401
2:16-401
3:9-402
3:10-402
3:11 -402
3:15-403
1 Chronicles (cont.)
3:16-402
3:17-405, 438
3:18-438
3:19-439, 451
3:21-451
3:12-451
5:1- 400
5:2-400
6: i - 406
6:11 -400
6:12 - 400
6:15-406
6:33-270
6:34-270
7:22 - 1 19
8:33-407
8:34-407
8:40-407
9:19-498
11:3-407
20:5-288
21:1- 409
25:1-497
27:29-521
2 Chronicles
2:16-412
3:1-8$, 415
9:14-415
11.13-417
11:17-417
11:30- 41 9
11:21 -418
12:1 -418
12:2 - 418
12:3-418
12:6-418
13:2-419
13:17-419
a Chronicles (cont.)
13:21-419
14:9-420
14:11 -420
14: 12 - 420
14:13-420
14:14-420
16:12 - 420
16:13-420
17:12-421
24:15-421
24:22-422
25:11 -422
25:14-422
26:1 -422
26:6-458
26:15-423
26:16-423
28:6-423
32:27-424
32:30-424
33:9-424
33:11-424
33:12-425
33 :1 3"4*5
33:18-426
33:19-426
35:25-581
36:14-428
36:16-428
36:17-428
36:20-436
36:21-428, 436
36:22-428
1 Corinthians*
5:6-155
1 Corinthians*
6:15-204
1232
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
Daniel
1:1-599
1:2-599
1:6-599
I: 7~599
1:21- 600
2:2 -600
2:4 - 600
2:31 -601
2:32 -601
2:33-602
2:34-602
2:35-602
2:39-602
2:40-602
2:41 - 602
2:42 - 602
2:44 - 602
3:23-603
3:25-603
4:33-604
5:1-605
5:2-605
5:5-607
5:25-607
5:26-607
5:27-607
5:28-607
5 : 30 - 608
5:31 -608
6:28-609
7:4-609
7:5-609
7:6-609
7:7-609
7:8-609
7:9-610
7:13-610
-610
-205
■611
8:16-
9:1 -609
9:24-613
9:25-613
9:26-613, 614
9:27-614
10:13-615
10:20-615
10:21 -615
11:2-616
11:5-616
11:6-616
11:7-618
11:15-618
11:21 -618
11:30-619
Daniel (cont.)
12:2 -619, 633
12:7-619
12:11 -619
Deuteronomy
1:1-193
1:7-196
1:8-196
2:23-199
3:8-202
3:9-496
3:1 1 - 182, 20a
11:29-203
13:13-203
17:18-193
17:19-193
25:17-145
25:18-145
29:23-83
32:51-205
33:2-133, 204
33:6- 206
33:7-206
33:17-152, 187, 206
Ecclesiastes
1:1- 512
1:2-514
1:12-514
1:13-514
8:15-514
12:8-515
12:13-515
12:14-633
Ecclesiasticus
44:1-516
49:10-623
50:1 - 516
50:27-516
1 Esdras
3:12- 462
4:13-462
4:40-462
4:41 - 462
Esther
1:1-463, 465
1 19 - 466
2:5-467, 469
2:6-467
2:7-467
2:16-468
Esther (cont.)
2:17- 468
3:1-468
3:7-47<>
5 :I 4-47 1
11:1-473
16:10-473
Exodus
1:1 - 118
1:8- 120
1:11-126
1:13- 121
1:14-121
2:5-127
2:10- 128
2:15-129
2:21-168
2:23-130
3:1-131
3:8-170
6:3-134
6:20- 136
6:21 - 136
6:23 - 136
6:25-136
7:11-136
12:11-138
12:23 - 138
12:33-156
12:37-140
12:40- 143
13:4-140
13:17-141
13:18- 141
14:9-142
16:16- 144
16:36-144
17:8-144
17:9-146
21:28-185
22:18-162
22:32 - 669
*3 :, 5-'55
23:19- 161
25:18-147
25:20-147
28:30-149
32:4-151
Ezekiel
1:1-583
1:2-583
1:3-583
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES 1233
Exekiel (cont.)
1:6- 149
1:7-149
1:10- 149
8:14-585
14:13-476
14^14-476, 598
16:1-586
26:7-586
27:5-181
27:7-588
27:8-589
27:9-589
27:14-590
28:2 - 596
28:3-598
28:7-590
28:8-590
29:1-591
29:2-591
29:3-502
29:4-502
29:10-592
29:14-593
29:17-588
29:18-588
30:15-593
38:1-594
38:2-594
Ezra
1:1-434
1:3-436
• = 5-437
1:6-437
2:1-439
2:2-439
3:2-440
4:1-441
4:2-441
4=3-44*
4:4-442
4:5-442
4:6-445
4=7-445. 44 6
4=9-455
4:10-447, 455
4:24-448
5 :I ~439. 44 8 > 664
5:16-439
6:2 - 448
6:15-448
7:6-449
7=7 "449
Ezra (cont.)
8:1-451
8:2-450
10:6-460
Genesis
1:1-15, 17
1:2-486
2:2 - 18
2:3-18
2:4-19
2:7-21
2:8-22
2:10-25
2:11-25
2:12-26
2:13-26
2:14-26
2:17-31
2:19-21
3:1-31, 175
3:20-32
3:22-18
3:24-148
4 :l "33
4 :2 ~33
4:16-34
4 : »7-35
4:22-33
5:1-21
5 = 3-35
5 = 5-35
5- 2 l-37
5-^-37
6:2-159
6:4-72, 159
7:11-40
8:4 - 40
9:3-160
9:4- 160
9: 18 - 42
10:2-45, 5°5
10:3-45
10:4-45
10:6-47, 5°4
10 =7-47. 499
10:8-48
10:9-48
10: 10 - 48
10:1 1 - 48
10: 12 - 48
10:15-77
10:22-53, 47<5
10:23-476
10:24-53
Genesis (cont.)
11:7-18
11:9-55
11:27-56
11:28-56
11:31-59
1 2 : 5 - 60
12:6-100
12:7 - 100
12:10-61
12:15-64
13:10-65
13:11-65
13:12-65
13:18-67
14:1-68
14:3-70
14:5-71
14:6-96
M = »5-75
14:18-73
14:19-73
»5 = »-75
J 5 :1 9-75
15:20-75
15:21-77
16:15-79
•7=7-79
17:10-80
17:24-199
19:23-82
19:24 - 82
19:25-82
19:37-84
19:38-84
20:1 -84
20:7-503
21:14-86
21:21 -87
21:31-86
21:32-84
21:34-85
22:2-8,
22:20- 88
22:21-88, 483
22:22-88
22:23-88
23:2-68
23:19-89
24:10 - 90
25:1-92, 483
25:2-92, 479, 483
1 5=3-483
25:13-484, 506, 510
25:14-510
1234
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
Genesit (cont.) Haggm (cont.) ltaiah (cont.)
25:15-484 2:3-663 24:10-542
25:18-29 2:22-661 24:11-542
25:20-91 2:23-661 24:12-542
28:18-370 Hebrews* 24:22-543
28:19-94 11:37-547 »5 :8 -543
30:32-94 a5:'«>-543
31:19-179 Hosea 26:19-543
31:23-191 1:1-625 27:1-487,543
31:30-179 1:3-626 27:12-544
32:3-96 ,: 4~^6 27:13-544
32:22-98 3:5-628 29:1-544
32:28-98 5:"3- 6a 7 307 - 545
33:18-98 7=5-^1 34:5-545
34:1-100 8:7-628 34:14-545
34:2-100 9 : 9~ a 57 40:1-548
34:25-100 10:14-628 40:2-548
35:19-102, 560 10:15-628 41:2-549
35:22-102 41 : 9 -550
36:2-103 luuh 41:25-550
36:4-479 1:1-526 42 : 4 -550
36:10-103 > = "-5 a 7 45=1 -53 6 > 549
36:11-103,479 1:13-528 45:14-550
36:12-103 2:14 — 528 46:1-551
36:28-105,477 1:16-528 49:4-551
36:31-477 1:17-528 49 :6 ~55»
36:32-105,477 a:»-535 51:9-501
36:33-105,477 M-535 53 = 3-55*
37:20-103 2:12-197 60:10-553
37:25-192 * : *5 _1 97 62:4-553
37:36-106 5:8-528
38:2-169 6:1-526, 527, 528 Jeremiah
38:29-107 6:2-528 1:1-555
38:30-107 6:3-529 i:*-555
41:1-107 7=3-53° >=]-555
41:2-110 7:11-531 1:6-557
41:45-112 7="-53 1 » = "4-5S8
45:10-114 7:^-532 2:16-559
:n — 114 7:16-532 3:11-560
. =5- ,1 5 8:3-533 3:18-561
48:22-115 8:4-533 7=4-5^
49:3-116 8:18-530 7:9-562
49:4-116 9=°-534 7:10-562
49:5-116 97-534 7:12-562
49:7-116 10:32-290 7:31-163
49:8-116 11:1-535 8:22-192
49:10-116 11:2-535 11:21-563
50:23-239 11:6-535 11:22-563
11:8-536 18:18-563
Habakkuk 14:12-538 20:1-563
1:1-657 14:13-538 20:2-563
1:6-657 14:14-538 »»:9-574
14:15-538 22:11-402
Haggai 20:1-458 22:12-403
1:1-661 24:1-542 22:15-559
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES 1??5
Jeremiah (cont.) Jeremiah (cont.) Joshua (cont.)
22:16-559 41:1 — 578 4:20-211
22:18-569 41:16-578 6:20-213
22:19-569 41:17-578 6:26-213
23:5-570 41:18-578 7:2-214
23:6-570 43:13-113 9 : 3- 2 '5
24:1-572 44:30-580 9 : 4~ 21 S
24:2-572 47:4-199 10:12-216
25:1-564 48:33-83 10:13-216
25:2-564 48:34-83 10:14-216
25:3-564 49:7-479 Ji:5~ 21 7
25:8-565 50:2-552 11:8-217
25:9-565 51:27-41 11:10-236
25:19-477 51:41-566 11:11-236
25:20-477 13:2-219
25:23-483 Job >3 : 3- J1 9
25:26-565 1:1-474,476 13:7-222
26:1-561 1:3-476 14:6-168
26:2-561 1:6-478 18:1-270
26:6-272 2:11-478 24:30-224
26:19-652 9:9-480 24:33-224
26:20-563 26:6-493
26:21-563 28:16-330 Jude'
26:22-564 32:2-483 1:9-616
26:23-564 38:31-481 1:11-184
26:24-564 38:32-482,484 1:1 4~ 37
28:1-57' 39:9-186 , ,
28:1 -S7i 40:15-485 l ud Z es ,
28-7-i;71 1 o 1:3-226
8 ; -57 40—485 1: > 9 _ 228
28:6-572 40^2-485 2:ll _ 232
29:1-565,573 4»:«~4«5 2:13-232
29:5-573 j oel 2:16-230
29:6-573 > oel , 3 : 7-233
29:7-573 1:1 ~ 6 f 3:8-233
29:10-436 1:,5 "/ 32 < 3=9-^33
29:21-620 3:2-630,632 3:12-234
31:15-560 3 : 4-633 3 : i3-234
32:15-575 3:6-630,633 3:27-237
36:4-566 3:7- 6 33 4:2-235
36:5-567 3 : 8-633 4:3-235
36:6-567 4H-237
36:10-577 Jonah 4 : 5-237
36:11-577 1:1-645 4:6-238
36:12-577 1:2-645 4:7-23 8
36:23-569 1:17-646 4:8-239
37 = 17-574 3:3-645 5:i-239
39:2-606 4:5-648 5:14-239
39:3-606 4:6-648 5:15-239, 240
39:9-575 4:10-648 5:16-240
39:10-575 4:11-648 5:17-240
39:11-577 5:18-239
39:12-577 Joshua 6:33-241
39:14- 577 2:1-210 6:35-241
40:13-577 2:9-211 8:1-242
40:14-577 4:19-211 8:6-243
1256
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
Judges (cont.)
8:22-243
8:23-244
8:30-244
8:31 -244
9:15-197
9:22-245
9:23-245
10:17-246
11:39-247
11:40-247
12:5-247
12:6-247
12:8-263
13:5-248
13:24-249
13:25-249
14:1 - 250
14:2-250
15:11-271
15:12-255
16:4-251
16:17-251
16:19-251
16:22-252
16:23-251
18:1-253
18:2-254
18:7-254
18:16-254
18:29-255
19:12-257
20:1-257
20:11 -258
20:28-258
20:47-259
21:8-259
21:25-255
1 Kings
1:5-320
2:26-557
*:*7~557
2:46-322
3:1-322
4=*4~3 J 4
4:30-507
4:31-507
4=3* ~5°7.
5-*-3'S
5=5-3^5
5:7-326
5:13-326
5:14-326
518
1 Kings (cont.)
6:1-325, 327
6:23-148
6:24- 146
6:37-140
6:38-140
7:2-197
2:23-328
8:2-140
9:11 -326
9:22-326
9:26-330
9:28-328
10:1-331
10:2-331
10:22-332
11:3-518
n:5"333
11:7-179, 333
" = •4-333
11:23-334
11:24-334, 409
11:29-335
11:30-335
»»:3»-335
11:40-335
11:43-336
12:1-336
12:4-338
12:20-339
12:24-338
12:27-339
12:28-152
12:31-417
14:9-340
14:10-340
14:26-338
15:2-419
15:18-341
15:19-341
16:24-342
16:30-344
16:31-343
17:1-344
17:10-344
18:3-639
18:4-345, 639
18:19-346
>8=45-347
18:46-347
19:19-347
20:1 - 348
20:11 - 348
20:13-349
20:26- 348
Kings (cont.)
21:2-350
22:4-351
22:7-352
22:8-650
Kings
»:»-353
» :I -355^
2:11-356
2:13-356
3=4-357
3=5-357 o
3=M-35«
3=»7-35 8
5:1-360
5:17-360
5:18-361
5:19-361
8:15-363
8:16-362
8:18-362
9:13-364
9:30-364
10:11 - 364
10:31-365
10:33-365
11:2-367
11:3-367
13:24-368
14:7-369, 457
14:25-369, 643
15:19-371
»5 :J 9-374
15=37-374
16:3 - 163
16:6-374
16:9-374
17:3-375
17:4-376
17:6-377
17:24-380
17:20-382
17:28-382
17:33-382
17:34-382
18:1-533
18:2-533
18:4 - 176
18:13-384
18:26-447
19:9-384
19:12 - 24
19:37-41. 3«5
20:12 - 387
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES 1237
3 Kings
21:16
22:8-
22:11
22:13
23:10
23:22
23:29
23:30
= 3 : 37
24:1-
24:17
25:22
25:23
25:27
(con/.)
-388, 547
■ '95- 3 8 9. 555
-564
-564
-389
-390
-392
-403, 568
-403, 568
-393
■395
-404, 570
-395. 57 6
-404
-396
Lamentations
1:1-581
4:20-581
4:21-477
Leviticus
1:1-154
2:11-154
5:2 - 1 56
8:12-276
11:3-156
11:7-156
16:8-158
>7 : 7-«59
17:10- 160
17:1 1 - 160
19:27 - 161
19: 31 - 161
20:2 - 162
23:27-157
25:8-163
25:9-163
25:10-163
Luke*
2:1-319
10:18- 540
Malachi
1:1- 670
3:1-670
4 : 5-357. 670
12:24-355
12:40-647
17:12-357
»7 :I 3-3J7
Micah
1:1 -650
Micah (cont.)
3:12-652
4:10-652
5:2-653
6:7-654
6:8-654
Nahum
1:1-655
2:3-655
2:6-655
2:7-655
Nehemiah
1:1-453
1:2-453
2:1-140, 453, 454
2:6-454
2:19-456
3 : > -457
4 : 7"45 8
6:14-459
8:1-459
8:2-459
8 : 3-459
12:10-457
12:22 - 461
Numbers
1:1 - 165
1 :2 - 165
1:3-165
2:26-178
6:2 - 249
6:3-249
6:6- 249
12:1 - 167
13:6-168
13:16-146
13:21 - 169
13:22 - 169
13:23-169
13:26-170
13:33-7*. 73
16:1 - 172
16:3-172
16:32-173
16:33-173
20:22 - 174
21:6- 529
21:9-175
21 :24 - 180
2 1 : 2 5 - 1 80
21:33-181
22:5-183
22:6-183
Numbers
22:29 ~
22:41 -
23:14-
23:22-
23:28-
24:7-
24:17-
25:1-
25:2-
2 5:3-
25:20 ■
26:2-
26: 1 1 -
26:26-
31:16-
33:38-
33=39'
(cont.)
-178
- 184
-186
-186
-186
282
- 306
189
189
189
-145
165
-173
-191
- 190
190
-«74
-«74
Obadiah
1:1-639
1:11 -641
1:20-641
Philippians*
1:1 -205
Proverbs
1:1-507, 509
10:1 - 509
13:24-510
15:1-510
16:18- 510
25:1-509
30:1 - 510
31:1-511
31:10-511
Psalms
2:7-489
3
(heading) -490
3:2-490
4 (heading) -491
5 (heading) -491
6 (heading) -491
7 (heading) -491
8 (heading) -491
9 (heading) - 491
9:16-492
16 (heading) -492
18 (heading) -492
18:4 - 492
18:5-492
18:10-494
1238
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
Psalms (cont.)
22 (heading) -494
22:12 - 181
28:1-493
29:5-496
29:6-496
31:23-205
32 (heading) - 496
34 (heading) -496
39 (heading) -497
41:13-498
42 (he
.heading) -498
45 (heading) -498
45:12-498
46 (heading) -494
50 (heading) -497
56 (heading) -494
57 (heading) -494
60 (heading) -494
72 (heading) -499
72:10-499
72:20-499
74:7-500
74:8 - 500
74:13-487
74:14-487
76:2-74
87:4-501
88 (heading) -497
88:11-493
89:10-501
90 (heading) - 50a
90:1 - 502
90:2 - 502
104:35-502
105:14-503
105:15-503
105:23-504
110:4- 504
120 (heading) -505
120:5-505
137:1-506
Revelation*
9:11
-493
-6.5
-6.5
12:9
-6.5
19:1
-503
20:7
-594
20:8
-594
Ruth
Ruth {cont.)
1:4-263
1:5-263
1:16-264
4: 14 - 264
4:15-264
4:17-264
269
1:1
1:2
■ 261, 262
-263
Samuel
1:1 -267,
1:3-270
4:1-271
5:4-252
7:1-273
7:2-273
7 : 5~ 2 74
7:16-274
9:1-275
9:2-275
0:1 - 276
0:2 - 561
0:10-282
0:26-283
0:27-277
1:1-277
1:4-278
1:7-278
1:8-278
3:1-279
3:2-279
3:3-280
3:5-280
3:19 - 280
4:41 - 150
5:7-282
5:8-282
5:23-284
5:32-469
5:33-469
6:4 - 284
6:12-285
6:13-285
6:17-489
6:18-489
6:21-286
6:23 - 286, 489
7:1-286
7:4-287
7:12 - 263
8:1-289
8:9-289
9:18-289
21:1 -290
21:13-497
22:1 - 291
22:2 -291
1 Samuel (cont.)
22:3-265
22:8-291
23:29-521
24:6-536
27:2-292
27:6-292
28:4.-293
28:6- 150
28:7-294
31:2 - 298
31:10-295
2 Samuel
1:19- 489
2:3-298
2:4-298
2:8 - 185, 299
2:9-299
3:13-300
3:14-300
5:3-301
5:6-302
5:7-302
5:11-303
5:16-305
5:i7-3°5
5:18-30;
6:2 - 306
7:13-490
7:14-490
7:16-399
8:2-306
9:1-309
9:13-310
10:6-307
11:3-310
13:37-312
15:6-313
1 5 :2 3 - 3 1 5
15:30-315
16:5-315
16:6- 315
16:7-315
16:8-315
17:5-316
20:1-317
21:1 -308
21 119 - 288
23:1-489
*3 : 34-3»3 n
24:1-318, 408
24:9-318
24:16-319
24:17-319
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES 1239
Song of Solomon
1:1-518
1:5-520
1:6-520
1:14-521
2 : 1 - 52 1
2:12-522
4:8-197
4:11-197
j :l 5-'97
6:4-522
6:13-523
8:7-523
Susanna
1:1 -620
1:2-620
1:5-620
1:45-621
Three Holy Children
1:26-604
1:27-604
2 Timothy*
3:8-137
Wisdom of Solomon
7 : 7"5'5
Zechariah
1:1- 6641
3:1-665
3:2-665
3:3-66;
3:4-665
3:8-665
6:9-66;
6:11-666
6:12-666
6:13-666
Zechariah (cont.)
7:1 -664
9:1 - 666
9:3-667
9:4-667
9:5-667
9:9-668
9:10-668
9:13-668
10:11 -668
11:4- 669
11:7-669
11:8-668
11:12-669
11:13- 669
Zephaniah
1:1 -6;8
1:4-658
1 = 14 -660
1:15- 660
* Main treatment in Volume II.
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
Volume Two, The New Testament
Acts
1:1-997
1:2-997
1: 3-997
1:5-1000
1:9-997
1:13-998
1:14-998, 1023
1:10-888
1:26-998
2:1-999
2:4-1000
2:5-1001
2:9-1001
2:10-1001
2:11-1001
2:41-1003
4:32-1003
4:34-1003
4:35-1003
4:30-1022
4:37-1022
5:1-1003
5:2-1003
5:17-1004
5:34-1004
5:36-1005
5:37-926, 1005
6:1-1006
6:5-1006, 1199
6:9-1006
7:51-1007
7:52-1007
7:56-1000
:58-ioi9
:l-lOl9
8:3-1019
8:5-1010
8:9-1010
Acts (cont.)
8:17-1010
8:lS-lOH
8:19-1011
8:27-1012
9:1-1020
9:2-1020
9:3-1020
9:4-1020
9:5-1021
9:23-1021
9:24-1021
9:25-1021
9:27-1022
9:30-1024
9:31-1025
9:32-1025
10:1-1026
10:2-1026
10:28-1026
10:48-1027
11:2-1027
11:3-1027
1 1:18-1028
1 1:19-1028
1 1:20-1029
1 1:21-1029
1 1:25-1030
1 1:26-1029, 1030
11:27-1030
1 1:20-1030
1 1:29-1037
11:30-1037
12:1-959,
12:2-959, 1031
12:12-905, 1035
12:21-1035
12:23-1035
12:25-1037
13:1-916, 1041
13:4-1037
Acts (cont.)
13:5-1037
13:6-1030, 1039
13:7-1039
13:8-1039
1 3:9-1040
13:13-1041, 1042
13:14-1043
13:42-1043
13:43-1044
13:46-1044
13:51-1045
14:6-1049
14:1 2-1045
14:23-1124
14:25-1048
14:20-1048
14:27-1049
15:1-1049
15:2-1049, 1124
15:5-1050
15:7-1050
15:13-1050
15:14-883, 1050
1 5:20-1050
1 5:22-1051
15:39-1052, 1053
15:40-1053
15:41-1053
16:1-1053, 1114
16:4-1053, 1114
16:6-1053, 1054, 1114
16:7-1054
16:8-1054
16:9-1056
16:10-915, 1056
16:1 1-1057
16:12-1057
16:14-1058
16:1 5-1058
16:20-1059
1242
Acts (cont.)
-1059
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
21
6:36—1 1 17
' 37 — 10 5 1
1-1059
5-1099
10-1060
15-1061
18- 1062
10-1064
32-1064
34- 1064
1- 1065, "35
2- 1066
3- 1019
12- 1067
15-1068
17-1 104
19- 1068
22- 1069
23- 1069, 1115
24- 917, 1071,
25- 917 1071
8:27-1106
1-1106
22-1110
24- 1071
25- 1071
20- 1073
29-1073, 1132
35- 1072
1- 1111
2- 1092, 1161
3- 1092, 1111
4- 1100, 1120,
0- 1092
13- 1074
14- 1074
15- 1074
16- 1092
35-»075
1- 1075
20- 1077
21- 1077
28-107&
37- 1079
38- 1076
39- 1016
40- 1018
2- 1018
3- 1018
17- 1051
25-1017
27- 1017
28- 1017
23:6-1018
1154
Acts (cont.)
23:16-1017
23:24-1079
23:31-1080
24:24-1080
24:25-1080
24:27-1081
25:13-1081
26:28-1084
27:2-1 132
27:5-1084
27:7-1084
27:8-1084
27:16-1086
28:1-1087
28:12-1087
28:13-1086
28:10-1089
28:31-1089
Amos*
8:5-847
1 Chronicles*
2 : 5i-775
21:1-925
24:10-918
2 Chronicles*
24:20-870
24:21-870
Colossians
1:1-1128
1:2 — 1128
1132 1:7-1128
1:15-1130
1:16-1130
2:18-1130
4:7-1131
4:8-1150
4:9-1150
4:10-1037, 1132
4:13-1131
4:14-915, 1113
4:16-1130, 1132
4:17-1149
1 Corinthians
1:1-1084
1:11-1085
1:12-824, 110 5
1:14-1 101
1:10-1104
2:7-1047
3:6-1 106
4:17-1110
1 Corinthians (cont.)
5:9-1 102
7:7-1 126
7:29-1107
7:31-1107
9:5-1126
12.1-1 107
13:l-llo8
13:2-1108
15:5-1023
I57-IO23
15:9-1041
15:32-UOQ
15:51-1136
15:52-1136
l6:5-llll
16:6-1111
l6:8-l 102
l6:10-1110
l6:12-llo6
16:17-1 IO3
16:19-1098
l6:21-l lOO
2 Corinthians
2:1-1113
2:4-1112
2:5-1113
2:6-111
3
2:7-1113
2:13-1113
6:15-1139
7:6-1113
7:7-1113
7 : 9-ni3 e
10:10-1046
11:32-1022
1 1:33-1022
12:7-1047
13:1-1112
Daniel*
5:i3-9§i
7:7-1182
7:13-837, 883, 1194
7:14-836, 883
7:21-770
7:25-724
8:17-837
9:26-762
11:30-715
11:36-1138
12:1-1201
12:2-806
Deuteronomy*
6:4-943
65-943
INDEX OF BIBLICAL. VERSES
Deuteronomy (cont.)
6:13-813
6:14-813
6:16-812
8:3-812
17:1-993
17:7-1019
16:18-966
21:6-891
21:7-891
Ecclesiasticus"
24:9-962
50:1-758
Ephesians
1:1-1119
1:20-1131
1:21-1131
6:5-1151
6:21-1120, 1131
2 Esdras
1:1-1 178
3:1-1178
3:2-1 178
4:1-1179
5:4-1179
5:5-1179
5:7-1179
6:47-1180
6:49-1180
6:51-1180
6:52-1 180
7:28-1181
7:29-1 181
1 1:1-1 182
11:29-1183
11:31-1183
11:32-1183
1 1:37-1 184
11:39-1184
12:3-1184
12:11-1182
12:12-1182
12:14-1 182
12:1 5-1 182
12:10-1183
12:31-1184
12:32-1184
13:12-1185
13:40-1185
14:10-1 187
14:1 1-1 187
14:21-1 186
14:44-1 186
2 Esdras (cont.)
14:45-1186
14:46-1 187
1 5:29-1 188
15:30-1187
15:43-1 188
1 5:40-1 189
15:47-1189
Exodus"
1:15-796
1 : 1 6-796
2:1 l-l 178
2:12-1 178
3:14-082
4:19-800
0:23-918
12:3-992
12:13-993
loizv
20:9-846
20:10-846
32:32-1 201
34:21-8^8
34:27-768
Ezekiel"
2:1-837
20:12-847
34:2-98?
34:11-983
34:12-984
34:23-084
36:24-803
36:25-803
36:26-803'
38:2-1218
Galatians
1:1-1114, 1118
1:2-1 114
1:12-11 18
1:13-1020
1:17-1021
1:18-1021, 1023
1:19-1023
1:21-1025
1:22-1025
1:23-1025
2:3-1 1 1 2
2:9-1051, 1117
2:11-1049, 1116
2:12-1028
2:13-1042, 1117
3:28-1 1 51
4:1 3-1 1 16
Genesis*
1:21-1 180
2:2-846
2:3-846
11:12-938
13:8-819
14:18-1 1 56
15:18-760
29:15-619
35 :1 9-795
3 8:1 5-774^
49:17-1206
Hebrews
1:1-1152
1:2-1152
6:9-1152
6:20-1156
7:1-1157
7:2-1157
7 : 3-n57
10:20-1 155
10:29-1 155
10:35-1155
10:30-1155
10:37-1155
13:23-1152
13:24-1154
llosea"
1:9-768
2:1 1-847
6:6-845
11:1-797
Isaiah"
7:14-781
6:2-870
9:1-727, 815
9:2-815
9:6-1157
11:1-801
40:3-804
44:6-1194
49:6-1045
53:4-836
53:7-968
60: 3-990
66:24-947
James
1:1-1158
leremiah"
7:11-864
1244
INDEX OV BIBLICAL VF.RSLS
Jeremiah {cont.)
16:4-681
28:17-1004
31:31-768
51:12-1216
51:1 3-1216
John
1- 960
2- 965
3^965
6^965
:6 -9 6 5
11^87
12-987
•19-965, 975
: 20-965
:21-966
.23-966
: 28-969
: 2 9-967. 993
: 30-967
: 3 2-967
: 34-967
: 38-972
:4o-969
41-969
43-969
: 44-97°
: 45^7°
: 46-97 1
49-972
2:1-973
2:2-973
2.17-974
2:i«-975
2:19-976
2:20-977
2:21-977
3 :1 ^7«
3:2-978
4 : 3~97§
4 : 4-97§
4:21-980
4:26-968
4:40-980
4:41-980
7.1^81
7:5-980, 1023
John {cont.)
7:41-865, 972
7:42-972
752^71
8:31-976
8:54-962
8:56-982
8:57-982
8:58-982
9:22^7?
10:1 1-983
10:30-084
11:1-984
11:3-984
11:8-97.
11:43-985
114^74, 986
11:49-874, 986
11:50-874, 986
11:52-980
12:4-878
12^876
1 2:20-986
12:21-986
12:23-986
1 2:27-986
!3 : 23-955
14:3^88
14:16-988
14:17-988
lS: 2-870
18:34-989
18:35-989
19:10-989
19:1 1-990
19:12-990
19:15-090
19:25-820
19:30-991
19:33-991
19:34-991
19:35-992
19:36-992
19:37-992
20:16-973
20:24-994
20:25-994
21:2-959, 971
21:20-955
21:21-957
21:22-957
21:23-958
21:24-955
1 John
1:1-1168
2:18-1139
2 John
1:1-1 169
3 John
1:1-1170
1.9- 1170
1.10- 1170
Jonah*
1:3-1094
Joshua*
2:1-77.
15:25-841
Jude
1:1-1 172
1:9-1174
1:14-1174
1:15-1174
Judges"
1:31-728
y. 10-779
6:34-779
13:5-801
14:6-779
Judith
1:1-686, 688
1:2-688
1:5-689
1:6-689
2:4-690
2:5-690
2:0-690
4:1-691
4:2-691
4:3-691
4:6-692
8:1-69?
12:1 1-094
1 Kings*
1:38-860
15:20-822
17:6-805
2 Kings*
1:8-804
1:10-910
4:23-847
INDEX OK BIBLICAL VERSUS
1245
2 Kings (cont.)
5:10-803
14:25-971
23:29-1215
Leviticus*
4:27-993
4 : 32-993
19:18-943
23:15-999
23:16-909
24:16-982
Luke
1-917
3- 910
4^16
26- 919, 927, 940
27- 919, 927, 940
28- 919, 920
31-919
34- 919
35- 919
36- 920
42-920
44-921
46-921
59- 922
60- 922
67- 922
68- 922
1- 923, 924
2- 925
3^29
4- 929
5- 9 2 9
7^3o
8-930
2 9- 934
30- 934
36-935
46-9?5
46-935
1- 930
2- 936
2 3- 937. 939
2 4- 937
2 7-939
31^39
mi
38-037, 938
22-817
1-822
15-839
Luke (cont.)
6:10-941
6:31-683
7 : 4-94>
T- 5-94 1
7' H-9§ 5
7:15-985
7:37-900, 942
7:38-900, 942
8:1-899, 94 2
8:2-899, 942
8:3-942
9:10-853
9:53-945
954-909
9:56-910, 945
10:17-943
10:29-943
10:35-944
10:36-944
10:37-944
l 1.49-963
3:7-886
6:13-945
6:19-946
6: 20-946
6:22-946, 948
6:23-948
6:24-948
6:25-948
6:31-985
7:16-945
7:17^45
8:25-945
9:12-949
9:14-949
915-949
9:39-062
9:40-862
22:1-975
22:23-054
23:5-981
23.6-950
237-950
23:11-950
23:33-893
23:34-950
23:42-951
2343-951
23:46-951
1 Maccabees
1.1-700, 701
1:7-703
1:8-703
1 Maccabees (cont.)
: 9-7°3
: 10-705, 709, 710
:ll~7l2
:14- 7 12
:i 5 - 7 l2
:17"713
:l8- 7 13
:20- 7 l 4
:21- 7 1 4
:23-7M
: 29-7 15
: 3°-7i5
: 4 1- 7 15
: 4 2- 7 15
54-715
,1-716
,2-716
: 3-7l6
: 4~7i6
,5-716
,18-717
,23-718
-37-719
41-719
,: 4 2- 7 l8
,70-719
:l- 7 l 9
:io~719
: 16-720
: 31-72i
:3 2 -72i
: 37-721
:52- 7 23
8
8:8
3-723
0-7
5
50-723
59-723
3-724^
14- 726
15- 726
21- 727
22- 728
16- 728
17- 729
1-730
5- 730
6- 730
1- 731
2- 733
3- 734
IV
_ 736
8:9-737
10-738
1-739
3-739
1246
i Maccabees (cont.)
9 :2 3-739
9:25-739
9:26-739
9:28-740
9:30-740
9:31-740
9:48-740
9:50-740
9 : 54-704
9:55-764
9:56-764
10.1-741
10:21-742
10:67-743
11.19-743
11:39-744
11:40-744
11:54-745
11:67-022
12:2-745
12:7-756
12:21-747
12:39-747
INDEX OK BIBLICAL VERSES
2 Maccabees (cont.)
6:18-763
6:19-763
6:20-763
12:31-999
12:32-099
14:3-764
14:4-764
Malachi"
4:5-805
Mark
1:1-770
1 7-906
1:9-906
1:23-907
1:24-907
1:25-907
1 : 26-907
2:14-907
12
!3 :
748
2 3-747
31-747
3^-747
13:33-748
13:41-748
13:42-748
1 3 : 5°~749
13:51-749
14:2-749
H- 3-749
15:10-750
16:2-750
16:3-750
16:14-751
Maccabees
1 7-755
1:10-755
1:20-756
1: 34-7 56
1:36-756
2:21-757
2:2 3-754
3:i-757
3:3-75«
3:4-759
f£?fa
4:9-760
4:23-761
4:33-762
2:27-548
970
3:21-^50
5:9-910
5:13-910
£41-911
6:3-817
7:34-9! 1
9:5-97 2
9:43-948
10:35-858
10:37-858
10:41-858
14:19-954
14:36-911
14:51-905
14:52-905
14:57-970
14:62-883
15:7-889
15:21-1098
15:23-894
15:29-977
1<: 30-977
16:9-899, 900
16:10-900
16:1 1-900
Matthew
790
800
1-773
3-774
5-775
Matthew (cont.)
1:6-776
1:8-776
i:n-777
I: 1 2 -777. 939
1:16-777, 939
™m
1:20-700
1:22-781
1:23-781
1:25-819
: 3-793
"794
-794
2:9-794
2:13-797
2:14-797
2:1 5-797
2:16-795
2:17-795
2:i«-795
2:19-798
2:20-798
2:22-797,
2:23-801
3:1-802
3:2-802
3:3-804
3:9-809
3:11-803
3:12-803
3:14-811, 967
3:15-811
3:16-810
3:17-810
4:4-81 1
4:6-812
47-812
4.9-812
4:10-81 3
4:12-81?, 816
4:13-810, 820
4 -i 4 -8i 5
4:16-815
4:17-813
4:18-822,
4:19-823
4:20-823
4:21-825
,823
4:22-825
4:24-826
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
Matthew {cont.)
4:215-826
5:1-827
5:2-827
5:5-827
5:17-828
5:18-828
5:19-828
5:46-820
6:7-831
6:9-831
6:24-032
Matthew (cont.)
1027
:i2-bS3
8:4-837
8^0-830
8:10-836
8:11-836
8:12-836
8:17-836
8:18-838
8:20-837
8:28-838
8:34-839
9:2-845
9:3-845 D
9:9-772, 845
9:11-845
9:12-834, 845
9:13-845
9:14-843
0:1-839
0:2-839
0:3-839, 008
0:4-840, 841
O:'
0:(
1:2-843
1:3-843
1:20-854
1:21-855
1:22-855
;;S s
2:2-846
2:14-049
2:24-849
2:25-849
2:40-897
2:46-849
2:49-850
3:3-80
3:10-851
3:54-817
3:55-817, 818, 1172
3:56-817, 818
l: 5-8j5> 8 42
.6-835
57-818
1- 852
2- 852
3- 8i3
tl\l
"ill
4:9-852
10-852
13-852
itl%
27-835
39-854
16-856
1^-85^
19- 856
20- 857
21- 81
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 :
4
4
4
5
5
5
I
6:
6:
6
6
6:
6:
6:28-860,
i-957
2 a 57,
3-857
7 : 4-973
-12-805
idu
20-858
29-859
1-860
7- 861
8- 861
9- 861
10- 865
n-865
12- 862
13- 862
15-864
r
i-
9
9
9
20:
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
856
958
957
17-864
46-864
T6-867
17-86S
21-868
41-866
L-866
43- 866
44- 866
45- 866
46- 867
35-869
Matthew (cont.)
24:15-870
24:16-871
24:24-874, 1139
24:29-871
24:30-871
24:34-871
24:36-871
25:15-872
26:2-075
26:3-873
26:4-875
26:^-8,5
26:14-875
26:15-875, 876
16:20-956
26:21-956
26:25-954
26:27-769, 896
26:20-769, 896
26:36-818
26:37-880, 957
26:39-880
26:48-880
26:49-881
26:50-881
26:51-881
26:52-881
26:56-882
26:58-884
26:59-882
26:60-882
26:63-883
26:64-883, 1008
26:65-883
26:66-883
26:74-884
27:1-884
27:2-884
27:3-886
27:7-887
27:8-887
27:9-887
27:10-887
27:16-889
27:17-889
27:18-889
27:19-890
27:23-890
27:24-890
27:25-891
27:26-891
27:32-892
2 7:33-§93
2 7 : 34-893
27:35-895
27:37-893
INDEX OK
1248
Matthew (cont.)
27:44-050
27:46-894
27:56-820, 899
27:57-895
27:58-895
27.02-897
27^3-897
27:64-807
28:1-898, 899
28:2-898
28:5-898
28:6-898
28.15-902
28:16-901
28:18-901
Nehemiah"
8:4-716
8:5-1186
8:18-1186
12:10-892
13^5-^
13:16-848
13.17-848
Numbers"
24:17-790
25:1-1200
31:16-1200
34:1 1-822
1 Peter
1:1-1 161
1:18-1203
1:19-1203
4:12-1 164
5:12-1161
5:13-905, 1163
2 Peter
1:1-1165
1:16-1105
1:18-1 165
3:8-1167
3:9-1167
3:10-1167
3:15-1165
3:16-1 165
Philemon
1:1-1 149
1:2-1 149
1:10-1150
1:11-11 50
BIBLICAL VERSES
Philemon (cont.)
1:15-1151
1:16-1151
1:18-1151
1:19-1151
1:23-1129, 1133
1:24-1133
Philippians
1:1-1 123
1:13-1122
2:19-1123
2:27-1125
2:28-1 1 25
3:4-1014, 1018
4:2-1120
4:3-1 126
4:15-1125
4:16-1125
4:18-1125
4:22-1 1 22
Proverbs'
8:22-962
8:23-962
Psalms*
22:1-895
22:16-895
22:17-895
22:16-895
23:1-1141
3 1: 5"95 1
34:20-092
27:11-827
69:21-894
69:28-1201
90:4-1 167
91:11-812
91:12-812
1 10:1-866
1 10:4-1 1 56
118:25-861
118:26-862
Revelation
1:1-1 190
1:3-1193
1:4-1 192
1:7-1193
1:8-1193
1:9-1 192
1:10-1 194, 1 195
1:11-1 195
2:4-1199
2:6-1 199
Revelation (cont.)
2:14-1 199
2:15-1199
2:20-1200
3:5-1200
3:8-1201
3:15-1202
3:16-1 202
5:6-1202
5:7-1202
6:1-1203
6:2-1 203
6:3-1203
6:4-1203
6:5-1203
6:6-1203
6:7-1203
6:8-1203
7:1-1205
7:3-1205
7:4-1205
7:14-1207
9:2-1207
9:3-1207
9:7-1207
9:10-1207
9:14-1208
9.IO-1208
11:2-1 208
11:3-1209
11:7-1209
1 1:8-1209
12:1-1210
12:3-1210
12:5-1210
12:7-1210
12:8-1210
12:9-1210
12:17-1211
13:1-1211
13:2-1211
13:3-1211
13:15-1212
13:16-1212
13:17-1212
13:18-1212
14:8-1214
10:16-1214
17:1-1215
17:3-1215
17:4-1215
17:5-1215
17:9-1216
17:10-1216
17:11-1216
17:15-1216
19:20-1217
INDEX OF BIBLICAL VERSES
1249
Revelation (cont.)
19:21-1217
20:1-1217
20:2-1217
20:3-1217
20:0-1181
20:7-1218
20:8-1218
20:12-1218
21:1-1218
21:2-1218
21:10-1218
21:12-1218
21:14-1218
22:6-1219
22:7-1219
Romans
1:1-1093
1:7-1093
2:25-1090
2:20-1096
2:29-1096
6:15-1096, 1108
11:1-1096
14:13-1097
14:14-1097
15:24-1094
15:25-1092
15:20-1092
16:1-1093
16:3-1097
16:4-1097
16:13-1098
16:21-1099
16:22-1100
16:23-1100
1 Samuel*
10:10-1000
20:25-946
2 Samuel"
5M-939
1 Thessalonians
1:1-1051, 1134,
3:1-1134
3:2-1134
4:16-1136
4:17-1136
5:1-1136
5:2-1136
2 Thessalonians
1:7-1137
1:8-1137
2:3-1137
2:4-1137
1 Timothy
1- 1141
2- 1141
3- 1141
20-1 143
14-1 141
Timothy
1:5-1053
2:17-1143
4:6-1145
4:7-1145
4:10-915, 1133,
4:11-915
4:13-1145
2 Timothy (cont.)
4:14-1143
4:20-1101, 1145
Titus
1:1-1146
1:4-1146
1:5-1146
1161 1:12-1146
3:12-1147
3:1 3-1 106
Tobit
1:1-677
1:2-679
1:4-670
1:14-680
3:8-681
3:17-682
4:1 5-682
5:12-683
6:1-683
7:2-684
14:2-670
14:15-685
Widsom of Solomon'
1:6-963
7:22-963
Zechariah *
6:12-802
9:9-860
11:12-876
11:13-888
1148 12:10-092, 1194
14:4-800
14:18-742
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Volume One, The Old Testament
Aahmes, 580, 593
Aaron, 135-36
anointing of, 276
birth of, 174
death of, 174
golden calf and, 1 51—53
Moses' marriage and, 167
Abaddon, 493
Abdon, 248
Abednebo, 600
Abednego, 600, 603
Abel, 33-34
Abel of Beth-Maacah, 318
Abiathar, 291, 309, 557
Adonijah and, 320
exile of, 322
Abib, 140
Abibaal, 304
Abigail, 401
Abihu, 1 36
Abijah (Abijam\ 340, 418-19
Abimelech (in ksalms), 496-97
Abimelech (son of Gideon), 244-
45
Abiram, 171-72
Abishai, 401
Abner, 298-300
David and, 300
death of, 300
Abraham (Abram), 56ft.
burial of, 89
children of, 74-75, 79, 92
circumcision of, 199-200
covenant with God, 79-80
death of, 92
descendants of, 479
Egypt and, 64-65
emigration of, 59
Isaac and, 87-88
Lot and, 73
Melchizedek and, 73-74
origins of, 59, 97
Sodom and, 81
Absalom, 311-17, 402, 419
death of, 317
flight of, 312
rebellion of, 313-17
Accad, 50
Achish, 292, 496-97
Achmetha, 447-48
Acre, Bay of, 238
Acropolis, 302
Acrostics, 495, 582
Adadnirari III, 368
Adah, 103
Adam, 21
age of, 37
Lilith and, 546
Adder, 537
Admah, 70
Adonijah, 320-22, 402, 557
death of, 322
Adonis, 586
Adullam, 291
Agade, 50
Agag, 282-83, 4 6 9
1254
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Agagite, 469
Agriculture, 32-34
Agur, 510
Ahab, 214, 343-52, 372, 421, 499
Assyria and, 349
death of, 352
Elijah and, 346-47
Jehoshaphat and, 350-52
Naboth's vineyard and, 350
religious policy of, 343-44
Syria and, 347-49
Ahasuerus, 444-45, 463, 609
Ahaz, 374, 423, 625
Assyria and, 531
Isaiah and, 530-33
Ahaziah (of Israel), 355-56
Ahaziah (of Judah), 362-63, 421
death of, 364
Ahijah, 334-35, 340
Ahikam, 564, 576
Ahimelech, 290-91
Ahithophel, 313, 316
suicide of, 317
Ahmose, 121
Ahriman, 409
Ahura-Mazda, 409
Ai, 214
Aijeleth Shahar, 494
Ajalon, 216
Akhetaton, 122
Akir, 221
Alckad, 50
Akkadia, 39
empire of, 50
language of, 50
Akkadians, 416
Aku, 600
Alamoth, 494
Alexander the Great, 39, 222, 465,
473, 590, 603, 610-11, 667
Alexandria, 426
Jews in, 579, 618
Alleluia, 503
Alphabet, 589
invention of, 218-19
Al-taschith, 494-95
Amalek, 103
Amalekites, 103, 241, 469
David and, 294
Exodus and, 144-46
Saul and, 282-84
Amasa, 313, 401
death of, 317-18
Amasis, 580
Amaziah (king), 422, 527
Edom and, 369
Israel and, 369
Amaziah (priest), 638
Amel-Marduk, 396, 434, 605
Amen, 122
Amenemhet I, 64
Amenhotep III, 122, 124
Amenhotep IV, 122
Amestris, 467
Amman, 202
Ammon, 176
David and, 307
Cad and, 245
Cedaliah and, 577-78
Saul and, 277-78
Ammonites, 83-84, 124-25, 190
Amnon, 311-12, 402
death of, 312
Amon, 388, 427-28
Amorites, 50-51, 69, 77
Exodus and, 178
Amos, 181, 634-38, 650
Amos, Book of, 634-38
Amoz, 527
Am ram, 136
Amraphel, 69
Anak, sons of, 72
Anani, 405
Anathoth, 322, 557, 563
Ancient of days, 610
Angels, 529
fallen, 540
names of, 611-12
national, 615
Animal worship, 151-52
Anointed One, 276
Anti-Libanus, 196, 202
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1255
Antioch, 542
Antiochus III, 618
Antiochus IV, 205, 610-11, 614,
618-19
Antipatris, 271
Aphek (northern), battle of, 348-49
Aphek (southern), battle of, 271-
Aphrodite, 539, 586
Apis, 151
Apocalyptic literature, 540-45, 567,
61 off.
Apocrypha, 427, 604
Apollyon, 493-94
Apries, 571
Aqaba, Gulf of, 96, 133, 330
Arabia, 42, 330, 415-16
Arabia Felix, 331
Arabia Petraea, 457
Aram, 53-54, 483
Aramaeans, 54, 89, 91, 232
David and, 307
Aramaic, 446-47, 596, 600-1
Aram-Naharaim, 90
Ararat, 40-42
Ararat, Mount, 42
Araunah, 415
Arcturus, 482
Ariel, 544
Arimathea, 269
Ark of the Covenant, 147-49, 2 5 2 »
270
David and, 305-6
Philistines and, 271-73
Armenia, 41
Amon River, 178
Arphaxad, 54
Artaxerxes I, 445-46, 453, 459
Artaxerxes II, 450, 453, 459
Artemis, 481
Arthur, 628
Arvad, 589
Aryans, 465
Asa, 340, 419-20
death of, 350
Asahel, 401
Asaph, 497
Ascents, song of, 505-6
Ashdod, 221, 458
Ark of the Covenant and, 272
Ashdodites, 458
Asher (eponym), 95
Asher (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 239-40
territorial allotment of, 224
Asheroth, 233
Ashkelon, 221, 228
Ashkenaz, 46
Ashkenazim, 47, 642
Ashtaroth, 232-33
Ashumasirpal, 372
Ashumballit, 392
Asia Minor, 33, 47
Askalon, 221
Asklepios, 176
Asnapper, 447, 455
Ass, Balaam's, 184
Asshur (city), 51
Asshur (eponym), 53
Asshur (god), 552
Asshurbanipal, 390-91, 425, 447,
558
Elam and, 455
Assir, 405
Assyria, 51-53, 97, 231, 371-73
Ahab and, 349
Ahaz and, 531
cherubim and, 148-49, 605
Cimmerians and, 46
Egypt and, 377, 384-85
Elam and, 455
fall of, 389, 391-92
Israel and, 371-73
Jehu and, 365
Philistines and, 458
Syria and, 368
Astarte, 233
Astyages, 434-35, 621
Aswan, 592
Athaliah, 362, 365-67, 421, 499
death of, 367
Athbash, 565
1256
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Athens, 279
Aton, 122
Atonement, day of, 157-58
Aurochs, 186
Avim, 198-99
Azariah (companion of Daniel),
599-600
Azariah (king), 369, 373-74
Azazel, 158-59
Azotus, 221
Azzah, 199
Baal, 184-85, 232, 551
Baal II, 590
Baale, 305-6
Baal-Peor, 189
Baalzebub, 355
Baashe, 341, 420
Babel, 49-51
tower of, 54-55
Babylon, 51
Amraphcl and, 69
Assyria and, 375, 387
canals of, 506, 584
Ezekiel and, 587-88
Jews in, 437, 575-76
myths of, 467, 486, 552
peak of glory of, 434
Persia and, 608
Scphardim and, 642
ziggurat in, 55
Babylonia, 51
Babylonian exile, 19
Bahurim, 315
Balaam, 105, 183-90
prophecies of, 306
Balaamitc, 184
Balak, 183
Balkis, 331
Balm of Gilead, 192
Bamoth-Baal, 185
Barak, 238-39
Barbary ape, 332
Baruch, 566-67
in Egypt, 579
Baruch, Book of, 566-67
Baruch, Greek Apocalypse of, 567
Baruch, Syriac Apocalypse of, 567
Bashan, 180-82, 192
Basilisk, 537
Bathsheba, 310, 320
Beelzebub, 355-56
Beersheba, 86
Dan to, 255-56
Behemoth, 484-85
Bel, 551-53, 621
Bel and the Dragon, 621-22, 657
Bela, 105
Belial, 203-4
Bel-Marduk, 552
Bel-shar-utsur, 606
Belshazzar, 605-8
death of, 608
feast of, 605, 607
Belteshazzar, 599-600
Bcnaiah, 320
Bcn-ammi, 84
Benefit of clergy, 503-4
Ben hadad I, 341
Bcn-hadad II, 347-49
death of, 363
Ben-hadad III, 368
Benjamin (eponym), 95
birth of, 101-2
Joseph and, 113
Benjamin (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 239-40
Judah and, 338
territorial allotment of, 224
tribal war against, 257-59
Beor, 105
Bcrodach-baladan, 387
Bcth-arbel, 628
Bethel, 94, 214, 237-38
Amos in, 636-38
sanctuary at, 339
Bcth-horon, 456
Bethlehem, 102
Bethlehem Ephratah, 652-53
Bcthlehem-judah, 262-63
Bcthlehem-zcbulon, 262
Beth-shan, 295
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1257
Bethshea, 229
Beth-shemesh (Dan), 250
Ark of the Covenant and, 273
Beth-shemesh (Egypt), 113
Bethuel, 88-89
Beulah, 553-54
Bezek, 278
Bible, 441, 460, 589-90
Apocrypha and, 426-27
divisions of, 208-62
translation of, 426
Big Dipper, 482
Bildad, 478-79
Bilhah, 94-95, 102
Bitter Lakes, 143
Blood, eating of, 160
Blue Nile, 1 1 1
Boaz, 264, 285, 400-1
Books, 589-90
Borsippa, 552
Branch, the, 665-66
Bread, 155-56
British-Israelites, 379
Bronze, 228
Bronze Age, 228
Bull-worship, 151-52
Bunyan, John, 493
Buz, 88-89, 483-84
Buzite, 483
Cadmus, 219
Caduceus, 176
Caesar Augustus, 319
Cain, 33
Calah, 51, 645
Caleb, 168-69
Calf, golden, 151-53
Calneh, 49
Cambyses, 442, 593, 616
Canaan, 44
Abraham's entry into, 60-61
early history of, 210-11
Egypt and, 44, 131
giants in, 72-73
Israelite conquest of, 2ioff., 226-
name of, 218
spies in, 168-71, 210-11
tribes of, 75
Canaanites, 44-45
Crete and, 201
enslavement of, 326
language of, 61
Cape Carmel, 346
Caphtor, 198-202
Carchemish, battle of, 393
Cardozo, Benjamin, 642
Carmel, Mount, 346
Carmelites, 346
Carnarvon, Earl of, 63
Carrhae, 60
Carter, Howard, 63
Carthage, 213-14, 332, 44a
founding of, 588-89
Cedars of Lebanon, 197
Census, during Exodus, 165-67
under David, 318-19, 408-9
under Romans, 319
Chaldean (magician), 600-1
Chaldean Empire, 393, 434, 602,
609-10
Chaldeans, 58, 89, 387
Charles I, 626
Chebar, 583-84
Chedorlaomer, 69-73
Chemosh, 178-79, 189, 359
Cheops, 63
Cherub, 147-49, 494
Chesed, 89
Chileab, 311
Child sacrifice, 162-63
Chilion, 263
Chittim, 201, 619
Chiun, 636-37
Christmas, 139
Chronicler, 430-32, 453
Chronicles, First Book of, 397-411
names of, 397
genealogies in, 399
position in Bible of, 397
1258
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Chronicles, Second Book of, 412-
2 9
Chusan-rishatliaim, 233-34
Cimmerians, 46, 390, 558, 594,
658
Circumcision, 79-81
Philistines and, 199-200
Citium, 201
City of David, 302-3
Cleanness, ritual, 156-57
Cleopatra III, 472
Cleopatra's Needles, 113
Cockatrice, 536-37
Codes, 565-66
Coele-Syria, 196
Coniah, 569
Copper, 228
Cornwall, 229
Council of Trent, 461
Crassus, 60
Creation, date of, 36
Crete, 152
early civilization of, 200-1
Crocodile, 486, 537
Cubit, 182
Cush, 29-30, 47-48
Cush the Benjamite, 491
Cyprian, 516
Cyprus, 47, 229, 588, 619
Philistines and, 201
Cyrene, 580
Cyrus, 434-38, 536, 548-50, 593,
606, 608, 614, 616, 621
Daniel and, 600
death of, 442
Jewish policy of, 436
Dagon, 251-52
Damascus, 74-75, 91, 334
Assyria and, 368
fall of, 374, 532
Dan (city), 255-56
destruction of, 341
sanctuary at, 339
Dan (eponym), 95
Dan (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 240
migration of, 253-56
Philistines and, 248
territorial allotment of, 224
Daniel, 205, 597s.
apocalyptic portion of, 610-19
apocryphal literature concerning,
620-22
Cyrus and, 600
Habakkuk and, 622
handwriting on the wall and,
607
lion's den and, 609
Nebuchadnezzar's dreams and,
601-2
Susanna and, 620-21
Daniel, Book of, 447, 596-622
anachronisms in, 597
date of composition of, 596
Danube River, 444
Daphne, 559
Darius I, 442-44, 456, 461-62,
466, 616, 661
Jewish policy of, 448-49
Darius II, 450
Darius III, 667
Darius the Median, 608-9
Dathan, 171-72
David, 221, 244, 628-29
Abner and, 300
Absalom and, 314-15
Amalekites and, 294
Ammon and, 307
Aramaeans and, 307
Ark of the Covenant and, 305-6
Bathsheba and, 310
capital of, 301-3
census of, 318-19
Chronicles, First Book of, and,
407-8
death of, 322
descent of, 107, 117, 264-65
empire of, 307
family troubles of, 311
Goliath and, 287-88
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1259
guerrilla leadership of, 291-93
Israel and, 301
Jerusalem and, 301-3
Jonathan and, 289
Judah and, 297-301
madness of, 496-97
Moab and, 265, 306
musicianship of, 285-86, 488-89
palace of, 303
Philistines and, 292-93, 304-5
Psalms, Book of, and, 488-89
relatives of, 401
Samuel and, 285-86
Saul and, 285-86, 289-92, 536
Saul's descendants and, 308-10
son of God, 490
sons of, 311, 402
succession to, 320-22
Davidic dynasty, 399, 405, 450-51
Day of the Lord, 632, 637, 660
Days, names of, 612
Dead Sea, 71, 96, 217
present condition of, 82-83
Dead Sea Scrolls, 517
Deborah, 237-39, 245
song of, 239-40
Dedan, 483-84
Degrees, songs of, 505-6
Delilah, 250-51
Delta, Nile, 62
Demeter, 585
Deraa, 181
Deutero-Isaiah, 549
Deuteronomy, Book of, 193-207
discovery of, 195, 389
names of, 193
Devil, 159-60, 410
Diaspora, 576
Dibon, 358
Dido, 589
Dietary laws, 156-57, 160
Dinah, 95
rape of, 100-1
Diocletian, 595
Dionysius, 529
Disraeli, Benjamin, 642
Dodanim, 47
Doeg, 291
Dothan, 106
Doxology, 498
Dreams, of Nebuchadnezzar, 600-3
of Pharaoh, 107-8
Druses, 181
Dumu-zi, 585
E document, 20
Ea, 552
Easter, 1 39
Ebal, Mount, 203, 214-15
Eber, 54
descendants of, 103-4
Eblis, 410
Ecbatana, 448, 549
Ecclesiastes, Book of, 512-17
authorship of, 512-14
Ecclesiasticus, Book of, 516-17
Eclipse, solar, 636
Eden, 22-24
garden of, 22, 25-30, 148
Edom, 93, 545, 639-41
Amaziah and, 369
Exilic period and, 457
Exodus and, 174
Ikhnaton and, 124-25
Jehoram and, 362
Job and, 477, 479
rulers of, 103-5
Solomon and, 333-34
Edrei, 181
Eglon, 234
Egypt, 48, 61-64, 501-2
animal worship in, 151
Assyria and, 377, 384-85, 387,
390-91
Canaan and, 44
dynasties of, 63-64
eighteenth dynasty of, 121-23
empire of, 12 iff.
Ezekiel and, 591-94
Hittites and, 123
Jews in, 571, 578-80
Joseph in, 106
1260
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Judah and, 392-93, 568-69
magicians of, 136—37
Middle Kingdom of, 64, 108
modem, 110, 222
names of, 504
Nebuchadnezzar and, 591-94
nineteenth dynasty of, 1238.
Old Kingdom of, 63
Persia and, 442, 445
plagues of, 138
Ptolemaic, 603, 616, 668
pyramids of, 63
religion of, 122
siege of Jerusalem and, 544-45
twentieth dynasty of, 220
twenty-fifth dynasty of, 376
twenty-first dynasty of, 231, 323
twenty-fourth dynasty of, 376
twenty-second dynasty of, 335
twenty-sixth dynasty of, 392, 559
Ehud, 234, 237
Ekron, 221, 228, 355
Ark of the Covenant and, 272
Elah, 330, 341
Elam, 34-35, 53, 454
Assyria and, 455
language of, 53
mythology of, 467
Samaritans and, 455
Sumeria and, 68-69
Elath, 330
Eleazar, 136, 258
death of, 224
Elephant, 332, 485
Elephantine, 461, 571, 579, 592
Second Temple and, 579
Elhanan, 288
Eli, 270, 290, 557, 560
death of, 272
Eliakim, 403
Eliam, 313
Eliashib, 457, 460-61
Elihu, 483-84
Elijah, 173, 344-47, 670
Ahab and, 346-47, 350
Ahaziah and, 355
end of, 356
return of, 357
Elimelech, 263
Elioenai, 405
Eliphaz (friend of Job), 478-79
Eliphaz (son of Esau), 103, 169
Elisha, 347
death of, 368
Jehoshaphat and, 357-58
Jehu and, 363
prophetic party and, 356
wonder tales of, 360
Elishah, 47, 588-89
Elissa, 589
El Jib, 215
Elkanah, 267, 270
El-Khalil, 68
Ellasar, 68
Elon (Hittite), 103
Elon (judge), 248
Eloth, 330
Emim, 71-72
Endor, 294
En-gedi, 520-21
England, 229
En-lil, 552
Enoch (city), 35
Enoch (patriarch), 37, 173
Enoch, books of, 37-38
Ephah, 144
Ephraim (eponym), 113-16
sons of, 118-20
Ephraim (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 239-40
decline of, 248
Gideon and, 241-42
Jephthah and, 247-48
leadership of, 236-37
Moses' blessing and, 206
territorial allotment of, 224
Ephraim, Mount, 224-25, 237-38
Ephrath, 101-2
Ephrathites, 263, 269
Epistle of Jeremy, Book of the, 573
Eponyms, 42
Erech, 40, 49-50
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1
Eridu, 552
Eriha, 214
Esarhaddon, 385-87
Manasseh and, 424-25
Esau, 92-93, 169, 479
descendants of, 102-3
Jacob and, 97-98
Eschatology, 541
Esdras, First Book of, 461-62
Esdud, 221
Eshcol, 170
Esther, 467-68
Esther, Book of, 463-73
apocyphal portions of, 472-73
Ethbaal, 343
Ethiopia, 28, 442
Egypt and, 376
Moses and, 129
Ethiopia (modern), 331-32
Etruscans, 46, 131
Euergetes, 517
Euphrates River, 24-30
Europa, 201
Eve, 32
Lilith and, 546
Evil-merodach, 396, 434, 605
Exiles, Babylonian, 572-73, 575-76
Exodus, 143
Exodus, Book of, 118-53
name of, 118
Ezekiel, 181, 476, 502, 524, 598
exile of, 583
Judaism and, 595
name of, 32
prophecies against Egypt, 591-94
prophecies against Tyre, 586
Ezekiel, Book of, 583-95
Ezion-geber, 330
Ezra, 432, 453
exclusivism of, 451-52
in Jerusalem, 449
religious reform of, 459-60
Ezra, Book of, 430-52
Familiar spirit, 161, 294
Fan, 435
Fifth Syrian War, 618
Fik, 349
Flood, 38-41, 182
causes of, 40
date of, 38
Frederick Barbarossa, 629
French, 91, 196
Gabriel, 611
Gad (eponym), 95
Gad (tribe), 166
Ammonites and, 245
Deborah's song and, 240
Gideon and, 243
tribal territory of, 190-91
Galerius, 60
Galilee, 643
Galilee, Sea of, 217
Garden of Eden, 22
location of, 27-30
Gath, 221, 287, 367
Ark of the Covenant and, 27
Gath-hepher, 643
Gaza, 199, 221-22, 228, 324,
Gaza strip, 222
Geba, 280-81
Gebal, 589
Gedaliah, 395-96, 404, 576-78
assassination of, 578
Gehenna, 390
Ge-Hinnom, 389-90
Gematria, 327
Genesis, Book of, 15-117
authorship of, 17-20
name of, 15
Gcrar, 84-85
Gerizim, Mount, 203, 214-15,
Geshem, 456-57
Geshur, 312
Gezer, 323
Giants, 72-73, 182, 198
Gibeah, 279
outrage at, 256-57
Gibeon, 100, 215-16, 224,
Gibeonites, 308-9
1262
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Gibraltar, 332
Gideon, 241-45
kingship of, 243-44
victory of, 242
Gihon, 28-30
Gilboa, battle of, 293-94
Gilead, 190-92
Gileadites, 191
Gilgal (in Benjamin), 211-12
Saul's coronation at, 278
Gilgal (in Ephraim), 274
Gilgamesh, 40, 50, 175
Girgashites, 77
Gittith, 491
Gobryas, 608
God, 18
Abraham's covenant with, 79-80
creation of man by, 21
Mount Sinai and, 131-33
names of, 19-20, 134-35
polytheism and, 18
Sabbath and, 18-19
Second Isaiah's view of, 550
universality of, 550
Gog, 46, 594-95
Gold, 330
Goliath, 221, 287-88
Corner, 45-46
Gomorrah, 70, 81
Goshen, 113-14, 126
Gourd, 647-48
Gozan, 379
Great Ararat, 42
Great Britain, 188
Great Pyramid, 63-64
Great Rift Valley, 67, 71, 96, 141
Greeks, 42, 130, 200-1
Macedon and, 285
myths of, 45, 182, 201, 414, 481,
54°. 5 8 5
number mysticism and, 327
Persians and, 444
Philistines and, 199-202
Guadalquivir, 332
Gyges, 46, 594
Habakkuk, 622
Habakkuk, Book of, 657
Habor, 378-79
Hadad, 333, 336, 361
Hadassah, 467
Hades, 173, 585
Hadovia, 405
Hadrach, 666-67
Hagar, 79, 86
Haggai, 448, 664, 670
Haggai, Book of, 661-63
Haifa, 346
Hallelujah, 502-3
Ham, 42
descendants of, 42-44, 53
Egypt and, 504
Hamadan, 448
Haman, 468-71
death of, 471
Jewish policy of, 470
Hamath, 369
Hamitic languages, 44
Hamman, 469
Hammurabi, 50, 231
law code of, 69
Hananiah (companion of Daniel),
599—600
Hananiah (false prophet), 57c—
Hananiah (line of David), 405
Handwriting on the wall, 607
Hangmatana, 448
Hannah, 270
Haran (city), 59-60, 97, 392-93
Haran (person), 60
Harappa, 465
Hattush, 450-51
Havilah, 28-29, 330
Hazael, 363, 365, 373
death of, 368
Hazor, 234-36
Hebron, 67-68, 89, 170, 234
Absalom in, 313
David and, 298
Hel, 173
Heliopolis, 113
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1263
Hell, 173, 390
Heman, 497
Henotheism, 359
Hephzibah, 553
Hercules, 481
Hermon, Mount, 202, 496
Herodotus, 63, 123, 221, 303, 385
Heshbon, 180
Hesperos, 539
Heth, 77
Hexateuch, 17, 208
Hezekiah, 176, 382-84, 423-24,
5 2<5 > 533-34» 5 6 4> 62 5> 6 5 2 .
658
Babylonian rebels and, 387
rebellions of, 384, 544
wisdom literature and, 509
Hiddekel River, 27
Higgaion, 492
High Priest, 136, 149, 406, 440
Eli, 270
Eliashib, 457
Hilkiah, 5;;
Jehoiada, 367
Jehozadak, 406
Joshua, 661, 665-66
Onias III, 614, 618
Simon I, 516
Simon II, 516-17, 614
Zadok, 322, 557
Hilkiah, 555
Hindi, 466
Hinduism, 466
Hippopotamus, 485
Hiram, 304, 325-26, 412
Hittites, 69, 77-78, 97, 123, 200
Egypt and, 123
end of, 78, 131
iron and, 229
Hivites, 100, 215
Hizkiah, 658
Holah, 379
Homer, 228
Hor, Mount, 96, 133, 173-74
Horeb, Mount, 131-32
Horites, 96-97, 103
Horonite, 456
Hosea, 623, 636, 650
Hosca, Book of, 623-29
Hoshea (Hosea), 625
Hoshea (king), 375
rebellion of, 375-77
Huleh, Lake, 217, 235
Humans, 96-97
Hushai, 316-17
Huz, 88-89, 483
Huzzab, 655
Hyksos, 108-9
defeat of, 120-21
Hyperboreans, 414
Iapetus, 45
Ibzan, 248, 263
Idolatry, 162-63
Idumaea, 545
Ikhnaton, 122-23, 2 3*
Moses and, 124
Iliad, 607-8
Immanuel, 531-33
India, 28, 330, 411, 465-66
Persia and, 444
Indo-European languages, 44
Indus River, 28-29, 4^5
Ion, 46
Iran, 465
Iraq, 90, 465
Iron, 33, 52, 229
Assyria and, 372
Iron Age, 229
Isaac, 86
burial of, 89
children of, 92
marriage of, 90-91
sacri6ce of, 87-88, 415
Isaiah, 197, 290, 385, 524ft., 557,
625, 636, 650, 653-54, 658
Ahaz and, 530-33
apocalypse of, 540-44
call of, 526
death of, 388, 546-47
social policies of, 527-28
Isaiah, Book of, 524-54
1264
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Ishbaal, 18;
Ish-bosheth, 185, 298-301
death of, 300-1
Ishmael (son of Abraham), 79, 86,
506
death of, 92
Ishmael (son of Nethaniah), 577-
78
Ishmaelites, 29, 79, 92
Ishtar, 233, 467-68, 585
Israel (eponym), 93, 98
Israel (ancient nation), 98, 338
Assyria, 371-73
end of, 378
Jeremiah and, 560-61
monarchy and, 243-45, 1751!.
peak of power of, 369-71
tribal make-up of, 340
Israel (modern nation), 98, 222,
414, 459, 642
Israelites, 93
deportation and end of, 378-80
in Egypt, i2off.
weights of, 143-44
Israel-Judah, 301
Issachar (eponym), 95
Issachar (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 239-40
territorial allotment of, 224
Issus, battle of, 667
Ithamar, 136, 270
Ithiel, 510
Ithobaal I, 343
Ithobaal II, 590, 598
Izhar, 136
J document, 20
Jabbok River, 178
Jabesh-gilead, 259-60
Ammonites and, 277-78
Saul's body and, 295
Jabin, 236
Jacob, 928.
in Aram, 94
blessing of, 116-17
in Canaan, 96
children of, 94-95
death of, 117
dream of, 94
in Egypt, 114
Esau and, 97-98
in Shechem, 98-101
Jacob's stone, 276
Jacob's Well, 101
Jaffa, 412
Jair, 245
Jakeh, 510
Jambres, 137
Jamnia, 426
Jannes, 137
Japheth, 42-45, 505
descendants of, 44-47
Japhetic languages, 44
Jareb, 627
Javan, 46
Jazer, 180
Jebel esh Sheikh, 202
Jebel Harun, 174
Jebel Musa, 133
Jebus, 74
Jebusites, 74, 77, 301-2
Jeconiah, 403, 405, 438, 569
Jeduthun, 497
Jehoahaz (of Israel), 368
Jehoahaz (of Judah), 392, 402-3,
568
Jehoash (of Israel), 368-69
Jehoash (of Judah), 367-68
Jehohanan, 404
Jehoiachin, 395, 403, 405, 569-70,
583, 599, 605
captivity of, 396
descendants of, 405
Jehoiada, 367
Jehoiakim, 392-93, 402-3, 599
death of, 395, 569
Jeremiah and, 566-69
Pharaoh-nechoh and, 568
rebellion of, 569
Jehoram (of Israel), 356
death of, 363, 364
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1265
Jehoram (of Judah), 362, 421, 499
Jehoshabcath, 421
Jehoshaphat, 350-52, 421, 650
Ahab and, 350-51
death of, 362
Jehoiam (of Israel) and, 357
name of, 32
navy of, 350-51
Jehosphat, Valley of, 632-33
Jehosheba, 367, 421
Jehoshua, 146
Jehovah, 20, 134-35
Jehozadak, 406, 440
Jehu, 363-65
death of, 368
rebellion of, 364, 626
Jehudi, 569
Jephthah, 246-47
daughter of, 246, 586
Jeremiah, 402, 477, 524, 555ff.,
612-13, 620, 652
Babylonian exiles and, 572-73
call of, 557-58
in Egypt, 578-80
imprisonment of, 574
Israel and, 560-61
Jehoialdm and, 566-69
Lamentations, Book of, and, 581-
82
letter of, 573
Nebuchadnezzar and, 565, 577
opposition to, 562-64
period of exile and, 436
Pharaoh-hophra and, 580
Shiloh and, 562
Temple of Solomon and, 561-62
Zedekiah and, 570, 574-75
Jeremiah, Book of, 555-80
Jericho, 210-14, 22 4
fall of, 212-13
Moab and, 234
rebuilding of, 214
Jeroboam I, 152, 419
death of, 340
kingship of, 339-40
rebellion of, 335
religious policy of, 339-40
Jeroboam II, 369-71, 373-74, 499,
526, 625, 627, 643, 645
Jerome, St., 427, 472
Jerusalem, 74, 228, 229
capital, 338
David and, 301-3
Hazael and, 367
Jehoash and, 369
modem, 303
Nebuchadnezzar and, 395, 569,
574-75
Sennacherib and, 24, 384-85,
446-47
Shishak and, 338
tribal allotments and, 224
walls of, 456-59
Jeshua, 440
Jesse, 285
Jesus, 147, 306, 357, 490, 536,
540, 603, 610, 611, 647
ancestry of, 266
death and resurrection of, 586
Hebrew form of name of, 128
language of, 447
Jesus (son of Sirach), 516, 623
Jews, 374
in Babylon, 396, 405, 437, 575-
76
Biblical languages of, 447
circumcision and, 80-81
dietary laws of, 1 57
exclusivism of, 265
return from exile of, 4368.
Jezebel, 343-45, 421, 499
death of, 364
Yahvism and, 347
Jezreel, 343, 347, 363, 625-27
Jezreel, valley of, 240-41
Joab, 300, 333, 401
Absalom and, 312, 317
Adonijah and, 320
Amasa and, 317-18
1266
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
death of, 322
Uriah and, 310
Joash, 367-68, 421-22, 527
Job, 105, 474ft., 598
Job, Book of, 474-87
Jobab, 105, 477
Joel, 630
Joel, Book of, 630-33
Johanan (son of Eliashib), 460-61
Johanan (son of Josiah), 404
John, 404
Jonah, 643
Jonah, Book of, 643-49
Jonathan, 150, 279-81
Battle of Michmash and, 280-81
David and, 289
death of, 294
son of, 309
Jonath-elemrechokin, 494
Joppa, 412-14
Joram (of Israel), 356
Joram (of Judah), 362
Jordan, 67, 202
Jordan River, 65-67, 217
Joshua's crossing of, 211
Naaman and, 360
Joseph, 95, 105-6, 611
birthright falls to, 115
death of, 120
Hyksos and, 109
Jacob's blessing and, 117
marriage of, 112
Potiphar's wife and, 107
pyramids and, 127
sale of, 106
triumph of, 113-14
Joseph tribes, 206
bull worship and, 152
Josephus, 109, 127, 129, 379, 456,
461, 639
Joshua (general), 146-47, 168
commander in chief, 208
death of, 224
sun and, 216
Joshua (High Priest), 661, 665-66
Joshua ben Sira, 516
Joshua, Book of, 208-25
Josiah, 388-90, 427-28, 534, 658
death of, 392, 559, 568, 581
Deuteronomy and, 195
sons of, 402-4
Jotham (son of Gideon), 197
Jotham (king), 374, 423, 530, 625
Jozadak, 440
Jubile, 163-64
Jubiles, Book of, 164
Jubyl, 589
Judah (eponym), 95
Benjamin and, 113
children of, 106-7
Joseph and, 106
Judah (kingdom), 338
Chaldeans and, 576
Egypt and, 392-93, 568-69
guardian angel of, 61;
Jeroboam II and, 371
kings of, 402
Nebuchadnezzar and, 394-96
Seleucids and, 618
tribal makeup of, 340
Judah (tribe), 166, 284-85
Canaan conquest by, 226-28
Deborah's song and, 240
Edomite components in, 169
Jacob's blessing and, 116-17
Moses' blessing and, 206
Philistines and, 255
territorial allotment of, 222
Judaism, 195, 390, 460
Ezekiel and, 595
Jude, 184
Judges, 230
Judges, Book of, 226-60
chronology of, 230-31
Judgment Day, 632-33
Kadesh, 170-71
battle of, 123
Kadmonites, 75-77
Kageta River, 111
Kaiwan, 637
Karkar, battle of, 349, 372
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Karkor, 243
Kassites, 30, 51-51
Kedar, 505
Kedesh-naphtali, 238
Kenaz, 169
Kenezitc, 168-69
Kenites, 75-77
Kenezzites, 75-77
Khabur River, 379
Khartoum, 112
Khufu, 63
Kidron valley, 31;
Kings, First Book of, 320-52
Kings, Second Book of, 353-96
Kirisha, 471
Kirjath-arba, 68, 89
Kirjath-jearim, 273, 305-6
Kishon River, 238
Kition, 47, 201
Kitron, 229
Kittim, 47, 201
Klein, F. A., 358
Kohath, 136
Kohathites, 270
Korah, 136, 171-72
Korahites, 136, 498
Koran, 331, 611
Krakatoa, 82
Laban, 91, 96, 179
Labashi-Marduk, 606
Ladino, 642
Lahmi, 288
Laish, 254
Lamentations, Book of, 581-82
Language families, 44
Larsa, 68
Last Supper, 156
Law, The, 17
League of Nations, 196
Leah, 94-95
burial of, 117
Leaven, 154-56
Lebanon, 196-97
Lemuel, 511
Levi (eponym), 95
death of, 120
descendants of, 136
Shechem and, 100-1
Levi (tribe), 167
Jacob's blessing and, 116
Moses' blessing and, 206
territorial allotments of, 224
Leviathan, 485-87, 501
Levites, 135, 154, 417
Leviticus, Book of, 154-64
Libanus, 196
Libyans, 48, 335
Lightning, 530
Lilith, 545-46
Lion of Judah, 332
Little Ararat, 42
London, 595
Lord God, 19-20
Lot, 65-67
capture of, 73
daughters of, 83-84
Lota, casting of, 150
Louis XIV, 326, 539
Louis XVI, 626
Lower Egypt, 62
Lubim, 418
Lucifer, 538-40
Lud, 54
Lugal-Zaggisi, 50
Lydia, 46, 54, 594, 607, 641
Lysimachus, 472
Maachah, 419
Macedon, 285
Macedonian Empire, 602-3,
Macedonians, 473
Machir, 239-40
Machpelah, cave of, 89-90
Madai, 46
Magadalous, 592
Magog, 46, 594-95
Mahanaim, 298-99
Maher-shalal-hash-baz, 533
Mahlon, 263
Malachi, 357
1268
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Malachi, Book of, 670-71
Mamre, 67-68
Man, creation of, 21
Manasseh (eponym), 113-16
Manasseh (king), 388, 424-27,
557» 6 45
captivity and reform of, 425-26
Isaiah and, 546-47
Manasseh (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 239-40
Midianite raids against, 241
Moses* blessing and, 206
tribal territory of, 190-91, 224
Manasses, 427
Manetho, 109
Manna, 143
Manoah, 249
Marathon, battle of, 444
Marduk, 467, 486, 552-53, 621-22
Marduk-apal-iddin, 387
Man, 368
Maronites, 196
Martyrdom of Isaiah, Book of the,
547
Mary, Virgin, 611
Maschil, 496
Mass, Catholic, 156
Massa, 92, 510
Mattaniah, 404
Mazzaroth, 484
Medes, 391, 434
Media, 46
Median Empire, 434, 549, 602,
610
capital of, 448
fall of, 435
Megiddo, battle of (Josiah), 392,
568
Megiddo, battle of (Thutmose
III), 122
Melchizedek, 73-74, 504-5
Melkart, 343, 365
Memphis, 63, 120, 559
Menahem, 371
Menelik, 331
Menes, 62-63
Mephibosheth, 308-10, 315, 317
Mercy seat, 147
Merib-baal, 185, 406-7
Memeptah, 130, 143
Merodach, 467, 552
Merodach-baladan, 387, 455
Merom, 217
Merowe, 376
Menis, 127
Mesech, 505
Mesha, 357-59
Meshach, 600, 603
Meshech, 46, 505
Mesopotamia, 90, 233
Messiah, 490
Messiah the Prince, 613-14
Messianic prophecies, 534-37, 551,
570, 610, 652-53, 661-63,
665-69
Methuselah, 37
Micah (Ephraimite), 254
Micah (prophet), 564, 650
Messianic prophecies of, 652-53
Micah, Book of, 650-54
Micaiah, 650
Michael, 615-16
Michal, 300
Michmash, battle of, 280-81
Michtam, 492
Midian, 92, 479
Exodus and, 190
Moses in, 129
Midianites, 92, 190, 241
Migdol, 592
Mina, 607
Minoan civilization, 200
Minos, 200
Miriam, 167-68
Mishael, 600
Mitanni, 97, 123
Mithra, 438
Mithradates, 438
Mithraism, 152, 438
Mithredath, 438
Mizpeh (in Benjamin), 257-58,
2 74
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1 269
Mizpeh (in Cad), 246
Mizraim, 48
Moab (eponym), 83-84
Moab (nation), 124-25, 234, 543
Ahaziah and, 353
David and, 265, 306
Elimelech and, 262-63
Exodus and, 176ft., 183ft., 189—
90
Omri and, 353
Reuben and, 191
Moabite Stone, 358-59
Mohammed, 611
Mohenjo-Daro, 465
Molech, 162-63
Monotheism, 18, 56
Montefiore, Sir Moses Haim, 303
Months, 140
Babylonian, 585
Mordecai, 467-68
Moreshath-gath, 652
Moriah, 87-88
Moriah, Mount, 415
Moses, 17
birth of, 127, 174
blessing of, 187, 204-7
death of, 207
golden calf and, 153
Ikhnaton and, 124
marriage of, 167-68
Midian and, 129
name of, 128
Og and, 182
opposition to, 167-68, 171-72
Psalms and, 502
Moslems, 79
Mukhmas, 281
Mummies, 63
Muthlabben, 491
Mycenae, 200
Naaman, 360-61, 479
Nabataeans, 457
Nablus, 100
Nabonidus, 434, 606
Nabopolassar, 393, 564
Naboth, 350
Nabu, 552
Nabu-kudurri-usur, 393
Nabu-naido, 606
Nadab, 136, 340-41
Nahash, 277-78
Nahor, 88-90
Nahum, Book of, 655-56
Names, Biblical, 32, 128
Naomi, 263-65
Napata, 376
Naphtali (eponym), 95
Naphtali (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 239-40
territorial allotment of, 224
Napoleon, 222
Naram-Sin, 50
Narmer, 62
Narwhal, 189
Nathan, 310, 490
Solomon and, 320
Nazareth, 238, 643
Nazarite, 248-49, 270
Neapolis, 100
Neariah, 405, 451
Nebi Samwel, 274
Nebo, 552-53
Nebo, Mount, 186, 207
Nebuchadnezzar, 55, 393-96, 428,
564-65, 583, 598-606, 641
death of, 396, 434, 605
divine worship of, 603-4
dreams of, 600-5
Jehoiakim and, 569
Judah and, 394-96
madness of, 604-5
Nebuchadrezzar, 565, 599
Nebuzaradan, 575
Necho, 392-93, 428, 565, 568
death of, 571
Negev, 86
Neginoth, 491
Negroes, 45
Nehemiah, 453-54
walls of Jerusalem and, 456-59
Nehemiah, Book of, 432, 453-62
Nehiloth, 491
1270
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Nehushtan, 176
Neo-Babylonian Empire, 393
Nephilim, 72, 182
Nergal-ashur-usur, 605-6
Nergal-sha-rezei, 606
Neriglissar, 60;
New Babylonian Empire, 393
Nile River, 28-29, 62, 110-12,
126, 571
delta of, 62
sources of, 111
Nimrod, 48-53, 232, 481
Abraham and, 58
identity of, 53
Nineveh, 51
faD of, 391, 655
Jonah and, 645
Ninus, 52, 232
Nipvur, 552
Nisan, 140
Noah, 598
Nob, 289-91, 309, 557
Nod, 34-35
Nomads, 34
Noph, 559
Northern Kingdom, 338
Nubia, 376
Numbers, Book of, 165-92
Obadiah, 345, 639
Obadiah, Book of, 639-42
Obelisks, 113
Og, 181-82, 282
Ogyges, 182
Olives, Mount of, 315
Olivet, Mount, 315
Olympus, Mount, 132
Omer, 143-44
Omri, 341-43, 353, 364
On, 112-13
Onias III, 614, 618
Ophir, 328-30
Orion, 480-82
Ormuzd, 409
Oman, 415
Orpah, 264
Oshea, 146
Osorkon 1, 420
Othniel, 233-34
Ox, wild, 186
Padan-Aram, 91
Pakistan, 444, 466
Palestine, 86, 221
Papyrus, 127, 589-00
Paradise Lost, 356, 410
Paralipomenon, Books of, 397
Paran, 87, 168
Parsa, 435
Passover, 138-39
Hezekiah and, 424
Josiah and, 390
leaven and, 155-56
Pathros, 592-93
Patriarchs, antediluvian, 36-37
Patriarchs, postdiluvian, 55—56
Paul, St., 80, 204-5
Pedaiah, 405
Pekah, 373
Pekahiah, 373
Pelusium, 593
Pentateuch, 17
Penuel, 243
Peoples of the Sea, 131, 141, 199,
221
Peor, Mount, 186
Perizzites, 75-77
Persephone, 585
Perseus, 414
Persia, 285
Persian Empire, 435, 445, 549,
602, 610
Egypt and, 442
Greeks and, 444
peak of power of, 444
Persian Gulf, 27-28, 40, 435
Persian religion, 409-11
Persis, 435
Peru, 330
Pethor, 183
Petra, 457
Pharaoh-hophra, 571, 593
death of, 580
Pharaoh-nechoh, 392-93
Pharaoh of Abraham, 64-65
Pharaoh of the Exodus, 130-31
Pharaoh of Joseph, 107-8
Pharaoh of the Oppression, 120-26
daughter of, 127
Pharaoh of Solomon, 322-23
Pharez, 106-7
Philip the Arabian, 457
Philistia, 221
Philistines, 131, 199-202, 224, 458
Ark of the Covenant and, 271-73
Assyria and, 458
Dan and, 248
David and, 292-93, 304-5
Egypt and, 219-22
Ephraim and, 271-72
Judah and, 255
peak of power of, 272
royal titles of, 497
Samson and, 250-53
Samuel and, 274-75
Saul and, 277-81
Phinehas, 136, 258
Phoenicians, 201, 218-19, 229
Ahab and, 343-44
Omri and, 343
tribal allotments and, 224
Phosphoros, 539
Phrygians, 131
Phut, 47
Pi, 328
Pi-hariroth, 142
Pilgrim's Progress, The, 493, 554
Pisgah, Mount, 185-86, 207
Pison River, 28-30
Pit, 173
Pithom, 126, 141
Plataea, 279
Pleiades, 481-82
Polytheism, 18
Pontus, 438
Popes, 403
Pork, 157
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1271
Potiphar, 105-6
wife of, 107
Prayer of Manasses, Book of the,
425-26
Priestly Document, 19
Prometheus, 45
Prophets, band of, 282-83
Elijah and, 344
Elisha and, 356
Prophets, major, 524
Prophets, minor, 623
Proverbs, Book of, 507-11
Psalms, acrostic, 495
Psalms, Book of, 488-506
titles in, 490
Psamtik I, 392
Psamtik II, 571
Psamtik III, 442
Pseudo-Dionysius, 529
Psusennes II, 323
Ptolemaic Egypt, 603, 616, 668
Ptolemy II, 426
Ptolemy III, 517, 618
Ptolemy VI, 517, 618
Ptolemy VII, 517
Ptolemy, VIII, 472
Pul, 371-73
Purim, 470
Pyramids, 63
Israelites and, 127
Pythagoras, 327, 539
Qarqar, battle of, 349
Queen of Sheba, 331, 520
Ra, 112
Raamses, 126
Rabbah, 202
Rabbath-Ammon, 202
Rachel, 94-95, 179
burial of, 560
death of, 101-2
Rachel tribes, 236-37
Rahab (woman), 211
Rahab (Egypt), 501-2
Ram, 483
1272
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Ramah (in Benjamin), 237-38,
560-61
Ramah (in Ephraim), 269
Ramathaim-zcphim, 267-69
Rameses 1, 123
Rameses II, 123-26, 174, 326
death of, 130
Israelite oppression and, 125-26
Rameses III, 220
death of, 231
Ramoth-gilead, 350-51, 363, 650
Rebekah, 88-89, 91, 117
Red Sea, 67, 96, 126, 133, 141-
43. 33°
parting of, 142-43
Reeds, Sea of, 143
Rehoboam, 336-40, 416-18
Rephaim, 71-73
Rephaim, valley of, 304-5
Rephidim, 144
Resen, 51
Rest of Esther, the, 472-73
Reuben (eponym), 95
Bilhah and, 102
Joseph and, 106
Reuben (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 240
Jacob's blessing and, 116
Moses' blessing and, 206
rebellion of, 172
tribal territory of, 190-91
Rezin, 373
Rezon, 334
Rhinoceros, 188
Rhodes, 47
Richard II, 626
Rimmon, 361-62
Rim-Sin, 69
Rock Rimmon, 259
Rodanim, 47
Rome, 457, 542, 610, 619
Romulus, 435
Ruth, 264-66, 285
Ruth, Book of, 261-66, 401, 452,
648
Saba, 331
Sabaea, 331
Sabbath, 19
Sacrifice, human, 246-47, 359
Saida, 219
Saint, 204-5
Sals, 392, 559
Sakkuth, 637
Salamis, battle of, 445
Salathiel, 405, 439
Salem, 73-74
Salt Sea, 70-71
Samaria, 523
Benhadad II and, 348
fall of, 377
founding of, 342-43
Samaritans, 203, 415, 440-42, 523
arrival of, 380-82
Elam and, 455
Samson, 248-53
death of, 253
Samuel, 469
birth of, 270
David and, 285-86
Philistines and, 274-75
prophets and, 282-83
Saul and, 275-76, 283-84
Samuel, First Book of, 267-95
Samuel, Second Book of, 297-319
Sanballat, 456
Sanskrit, 465
Sarafand, 345
Sarah, 79
death of, 89
Hagar and, 86
Sarai, 79
Sardis, 641
Sargon II, 377-78, 393, 544, 651
death of, 384
Sargon of Agade, 50
birth of, 129
Satan, 356, 408-11, 478, 540, 595,
665
fall of, 615
serpent and, 31
Satum (planet), 637
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1273
Saturnalia, 139
Satyrs, 159-60
Saul, 150, 230, 275*!., 469, 492
Amalekites and, 282, 284
Ammonites and, 277-78
burial of, 295
capital of, 279
David and, 285-86, 289-92, 536
descendants of, 308-10, 406-7
Jonathan and, 279-81
Philistines and, 277-81
prophets and, 283
Samuel and, 283-84
suicide of, 294
Saxons, 379
Scapegoat, 158
Scribes, 449-50
Scythians, 46, 379
Seba, 499
Second Isaiah, 5478., 567
Second Temple, 440-49, 613-15,
619, 661
Seir, 96
Seir, Mount, 96, 133
Seir the Horite, 103
Selah, 457, 490-91
Seleucids, 541-42, 598, 603, 610,
616, 668
Seleucus, 610
Semitic languages, 44
Sennacherib, 24, 41, 384-85, 544,
611, 645
death of, 385
Sepharad, 641-42
Sephardim, 47, 642
Septuagin, 15, 426
Septuagint, 15, 426
Serpent, 31, 175
Satan as, 410
seraphim and, 529-30
Servant of the Lord, 550-51
Sesostris (legendary), 123-24
Sesostris I, 64
Seth, 35
Setnakht, 220
Seven, significance of, 612-13
Shabaka, 376
Shadrach, 600, 603
Shakespeare, William, 626
Shallum, 402, 568
Shalman, 627-28
Shalmaneser I, 51, 645
Shalmaneser III, 349, 372
death of, 368
Jehu and, 365
Shalmaneser V, 375-77, 628
Shamgar, 234-35
Shaphan, 577
Sharon, 521
Shatt-al-Arab, 28
Shealtiel, 405, 439
Shear-Jashub, 530-31
Sheba (kingdom), 331, 499
Sheba (person), 317-18
Shechaniah, 405
Shechem (city), 98-101, 105, 203,
224, 338-39
Abimelech and, 244-45
Shechem (person), 100-1
Shekel, 607
Shem, 42, 56
descendants of, 42-44, 53-54
Shemaiah (line of David), 405, 418
Shemaiah (prophet), 338
Shemer, 342
Sheminith, 491
Shemuel, 270
Shenazar, 438
Sheol, 173, 492-93
Sheshach, 564-66
Sheshbazzar, 437-39
Shibboleth, 247-48
Shiggaion, 491
Shiloh, 270
destruction of, 272
Jeremiah and, 562
Shimei, 315-17
death of, 322
Shinar, 48, 599
Shishak, 335-36, 418
in Jerusalem, 338
Shittim, 211
1274
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Shocoh, 286-87
Shomron, 342
Shuah, 92, 479
Shubbiluliu, 78, 123
Shulamite, 523
Shunamite, 523
Shunem, 293-94
Shush, 456
Shushan, 453-54
Shushan-eduth, 494
Siddim, vale of, 69-71, 82
Sidon, 217, 589
Sihon, 178
Simeon (eponym), 95
Shechem and, 100-1
Simeon (tribe), 166-67, 226
Deborah's song and, 240
Jacob's blessing and, 116
Moses' blessing and, 206
territorial allotment of, 222
Simon I, 516
Simon II, 516-17, 614
Sin (city), 593
Sin (goddess), 56, 59, 132-33
Sinai, Mount, 132-33
Israelites at, i47ff.
Sinai Peninsula, 133, 229
Sind, 465-66
Sirion, 495-96
Sisera, 238-39
Six-day War, 67, 133, 222, 303
Smerdis, 442
Smith, George, 40
So, 376
Sodom, 70, 73
destruction of, 81-83
Solomon, 32off., 402, 499, 557
death of, 336
Edom and, 333-34
empire of, 323-24
forced labor under, 326
navy of, 328
Pharaoh and, 322-23
prophetic party and, 334-35
psalm of, 499
religious toleration under, 333
Syria and, 334
Temple of, 324-28
wisdom literature and, 507-9,
512-15
wives of, 518
Son of God, 489-90, 603
Son of Man, 610
Song of Solomon, Book of the,
518-23
Sorck River, 251
Soul, 22
Southern Kingdom, 338
Spain, 332, 641-42
Sparta, 236
Sphinx, 149
Stanley, Henry Morton, 112
Stone Age, 228
Stonehenge, 212
Succoth, 140-41, 243, 418
Sudan, 376
Suez, Gulf of, 133, 142-43
Sukkiim, 418
Sumeria, 30-31, 48
end of, 51
Flood and, 39-40
language of, 50
legends of, 37, 40
Sun, Joshua and the, 216
Susa, 453-54, 456
Susanna, 620
Susanna, Book of, 620-21
Susiana, 455
Syene, 592
Synagogue, 500
Syria, 307, 341
Ahab and, 347-49
destruction of, 374
modem, 91
origin of term, 91
peak of power of, 365
Solomon and, 324
Tabor, Mount, 238-39
Tahapanes, 559
Taharqa, 384—85
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1275
Tahpanhes, 559
Talmai, 312
Tamar (David's daughter), 31a
Tamar (Judah's wife), 106
Tammuz, 584-86
Tana, Lake, 111
Tanganyika, 111
Tanis, 114, 170, 323
Tarshish, 47, 332, 646
Tarsus, 47
Tartessus, 332
Tehaphnehes, 559
Tekoa, 636
Tel Aviv, 414
Tel Defenneh, 559
Tell el Amarna, 122
Tell el Kady, 255
Tema, 483, 484
Teman, 103, 479
Temple of Solomon, 88, 303-4,
cherubim and, 148
construction of, 324-28, 412
destruction of, 395, 575
Jehoash of Israel and, 369
Jehoash of Judah and, 367
Jeremiah and, 561-62
musician guilds of, 136, 497
repairs to, 389
Shishak and, 338
Temple, Second, 440-49, 661
profanation of, 614-15, 619
Temple Sermon, 561-62
Ten Lost Tribes, 379-80
Terah, 56
Thanksgiving, 139
Thapsacus, 324
Tharshish, 332
Thebes (Egypt), 120-21, 123
Thebes (Greece), 219
Thebez, 245
Thelasar, 24
Thermouthes, 127
Third Isaiah, 553
Third Syrian War, 618
Thrace, 444
Three Holy Children, Book of the
Song of, 604
Throne names, 403
Thummim, 149-50, 276
Thutmose I, 122
Thutmose III, 122, 327, 393, 412
Tiamat, 486, 552
Tibni, 342
Tidal, 68-69
Tiglath-Pileser I, 54, 232, 372
Tiglath-Pileser III, 372, 274-75,
378, 526, 532, 627-28
Tigris River, 27-30
Timnath, 250
Tin, 228
Tin Islands, 229
Tiphsah, 323-24
Tiras, 46
Tirhakah, 384-85
Tirzah, 339, 342, 522-23
Tishbi, 344
Titans, 540
Tobiah, 456-57
Togarmah, 590
Tola, 245
Tolstoy, Count Leo, 528
Tophet, 389-90
Torah, 17, 460
Tortoise, 522
Tower of Babel, 481
Trans-Jordan, 67
Tribes, Israelite, 115-17
eponyms of, 95
genealogies of, 400
naming of, 42
numbers of, 165-67
territorial allotments of, 222-24
Trito-Isaiah, 553
Trojan War, 200, 228-29
Tubal, 46
Tubal-cain, 33
Tubas, 245
Tudhaliya I, 69
Tukulti-Ninutra I, 52, 231-32
Turtledove, 522
Tutankhamon, 122-23
1276
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Twelve, Book of the, 623
Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of
the, 120
Tyre, 233, 303-4, 586-90
sieges of, 587, 588, 667
Tyrus, 586
Ucal, 510
Unicorn, 186-89
Upper Egypt, 62
Ur, 56-58
Urartu, 41, 373, 382-84
Uriah the Hittite, 310
Uriel, 419
Urim, 149-50, 276
Ursa Major, 482
Ussher, James, 36
Ut-Napishtim, 40
Uz, 88-89, 10 5> 47 6 -77- 4 8 3
Uzziah, 422-23, 505, 526-27, 625
leprosy of, 423, 634-36
Van, 41
Van, Lake, 41
Vashti, 466-67
Velikovsky, Immanuel, 138
Venus (planet), 538-39
Vespasian, 99
Vesper, 539
Victoria, Lake, 111
Virgin birth, 532
Vulgate, 427
Wadi el-Arabah, 96
Wadi Mojib, 178
Weights, Israelite, 143-44
Whale, 486
Jonah and the, 646-47
White Nile, 111-12
Winckler, Hugo, 77
Wisdom literature, 507
Wisdom of Solomon, Book of the,
Witches, 161-62
Witch of Endor, 294
Wizards, 161
Woman, creation of, 31
Woolley, Sir Charles Leonard, 38
Worlds in Collision, 138
Writing, 36
Xerxes I, 445, 463, 609, 616
Babylon and, 622
Xerxes II, 450
Yahu, 579
Yahveh, 20, 135, 185
Yahvism, 135
Ahab and, 344
Deuteronomy and, 195
in Egypt, 579
henotheism and, 359
Hezekiah and, 382
Jehoshaphat and, 362
Jehu and, 365
Jezebel and, 347
Josiah and, 389-90
in Judah, 284-85
Manasseh and, 546-47
Samaritans and, 382
Yemen, 330
YHVH, 20, 134-35
Yiddish, 642
Yom Kippur, 158
Zachariah, 371, 627
Zadok, 320, 322, 557
Zalmunna, 242-43
Zamzummim, 71-72
Zarah, 106-7
Zarathustra, 409
Zarephath, 344-45
Zebah, 242-43
Zeboiim, 70
Zebulun (eponym), 95
Zebulun (tribe), 166
Deborah's song and, 239-40
territorial allotment of, 224
Zechariah (prophet), 448, 664,
670-71
Zechariah (son of Jehoiada), 422
Zechariah, Book of, 664-69
INDEX OF SUBJEC
Zedekiah, 395, 404, 428, 582
Jeremiah and, 570, 574-75
Zelzah, 561
Zephaniah, 658
Zephaniah, Book of, 658-60
Zerah, 420
Zeresh, 471
Zeruiah, 401
Zerubbabel, 405, 439-40, 462, 671
as Messiah, 661-63, 665-66
Samaritans and, 441
Zeus, 361, 540, 608
Zidon, 217, 229, 303, 589
Ziggurat, 55, 94
Ziklag, 292
Zilpah, 94-95
Zimri, 341, 364
Zin, 169
Zion, 74, 88, 301-3
Zionism, 303
Zipporah, 168
Zoan, 170, 323
Zoar, 70, 83
Zodiac, 212, 327, 484
Zophar, 478-79
Zorah, 249
Zoroaster, 409
Zoroastrianism, 409-10
Zorobabel, 462
Zoser, 63
Zuph, 269
Zuzim, 71-72
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Volume Two, The New Testament
Abiathar, 909
Abilene, 936
Abomination of Desolation,
870-71
Abraham, 773, 796, 819, 937, 982
and covenant with God, 766
Abraham's bosom, 946
Achaea, 1066
Achaean League, 738, 1067
Achaicus, 1103
Acre, 728
Actium, Battle of, 1147
Acts of the Apostles, Book of,
9 95 ff
authorship of, 997
Aeshma, 681
Agrippa, 1033
Agrippina, 1079
Ahab, 777
Ahasuera, 685
Ahaziah, 777
Ahura Mazda, 756
Albinus, 1160
Alcimus, 740, 764
Alexander (son or Aristobulus II),
785
Alexander (son of Herod the
Great), 1033
Alexander (in 1 Timothy), 1143
Alexander Balas, 741, 743
Alexander Jannaeus, 783, 826
Pharisees and, 808
Alexander Severus, 1189
Alexander the Great, 689, 694,
700, 711, 722, 746, 753, 757,
1055, 1195
birth of, 1073
death of, 70?
successors or, 703
Alexandra (daughter of John Hyr-
canus II), 785
Alexandra (widow of Alexander
Jannaeus), 784
Pharisees and, 808
Alexandria, 677, 706
founding of, 703
Jewish massacre in, 1184
sack of, 1 188
Alexandria Troas, 1055
Alpha and Omega, 1193
Al-Razi, 680
Alyattes, 1195
Amaziah, 777
Amos, 709
Amphipolis, 1059
Ananias, 1003
Ananus II, 1158
Anaximandcr, 1075
Anaximenes, 1075
Andrew, 824, 1071
Andromeda, 1026
Angels, 682, 779
hierarchies of, 1129-30
Mohammedan, 682
Anna, 975
Annas, 873, 936
1282 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Annunciation, 919
Annunciation Day, 933
Antichrist, 1139, 1206, 1214
Antigonus, 1195
Antigonus Mattathias, 785
Antioch, 721-2, 1037
Christians at, 1029
founding of, 722
in Roman times, 1029-30
Antioch in Pisidia, 1043
Antiochus I, 707, 736
Antiochus II, 707, 1120
Antiochus III, 707, 720, 728, 736,
737. 758, 765. 1130. "97
death of, 710
Rome and, 709
Antiochus IV, 710, 723, 741, 760,
871 1016, 1137-38, 1209
death of, 728, 763
Egypt and, 713
Hellenization and, 712
Onias III and, 760
Rome and, 714
Samaritans ana, 842
Antiochus V, 729, 741, 763
death of, 730
Antiochus VI, 745
death of, 747
Antiochus VII, 750, 751, 783
death of, 751
Antiochus VIII, 751, 755, 783
Antiochus (father of Seleucus I),
722
Antipas, 798
Antipater (son of Herod), 798
Antipater the Idumean, 784, 1080
assassination of, 785
Antipatris, 1080
Antonia, 1033
Antonius, Marcus. See Mark An-
tony
Apelles, 1076
Aphrodite, 1038
Apocalyptic literature, 1176, 1184
Apocrypha, 677, 1187
Apollonia, 1051
Apollonius (general of Antiochus
IV), 719
Apollonius (general of Demetrius
ID. 743
Apollos, 1071, 1105-06, 1154
Apostles, Twelve, 839
after Jesus' ascension, 998ff.
Apphia, 1149
Aquila, 1066, 1097
Aramaic language, 771, 911
Archangels, 682
Archelaus, 797-98, 800
Archimedes, 1088
Archippus, 1141
Areopagus, 1064
Aretas, 814, 1020
Areus, 758
Arimathea, 896
Aristarchus, 1132
Aristobulus II, 783, 784, 808
death of, 785
Aristobulus III, 785, 786, 873
death of, 786
Aristobulus (son of Herod the
Great), 814, 1033
Aristobulus (teacher), 755
Aristotle, 1074
Armageddon, 1214-15
Arphaxad, 688
Arsaces V, 749
Arsaces VI, 751
Arses, 694
Artaxentes III, 690, 694, 691, 700
Artemis, 1072
Artemision, 1072
Arthur, 896
Ascension, 997
Asia Minor, 1001-02
Gauls and, 734, 736
Rome and, 737
Seleucids and, 736
Turks and, 1201
Asia, Province of, 1002, 1120
Churches of, 1195
Asmodeus, 681
Asmon, 716
Asmoneans, 716
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1283
Asshurbanipal, 689, 690
Assideans, 718, 806
Assos, 1074
Assumption of Moses, Book of,
1174
Assyria, 679, 1013
Athaliah, 777
Athenodorus, 1016
Athens, 745, 1061, 1087
Attalia, 1048
Attalus I, 736, 1196
Attalus II, 741, 1049, 1197
Attalus III, 1197
Augustus, 924, 1014, 1033, 1095
succession to, 936
Aurelian, 932, 1190
Ave Maria, 920
Azarias, 683
Azrael, 682
Babylon, 703, 722
"Babylon" (Rome), 1163, 1178,
1214. 1215
Bacchidcs, 739-40
Bactria, 711
Bagoas, 694
Balaam, 1199
Balas, 741
Balthazar, 788
Baptism, 803
Barabbas, 889
Barachias, 870
Bar-Cocheba, Simon, 1184
Bai-jesus, 1039
Barnabas, 1022
Council of Jerusalem and, 1050
famine at Jerusalem and, 1037
quarrel with Paul and, 1051-52
Barsabas, Judas, 1051
Bartholomew, 070
Bathsheba, 776
Beatitudes, 827
Behemoth, 1180
Belial, 1139
Benedictus, 922
Berea, 1060
Berenice, 1083
Bethany, 864
Beth-horon, 720
Bethlehem, 794
Jesus and, 800, 927
Bethpage, 860
Bethsaida, 853
Bethulia, 692
Bishop, 1124
Bithynia, 1054
Boanerges, 309
Book of Life, 1200-01
Branch, 801
Brutus, 1057
Burial, 681
Caesar Augustus, 923-24
Caesarea, 886
Caesarea Philippi, 855
Caesar, Julius, 785, 932, 1066,
1183, 1197
assassination of, 1057
Caiaphas, 873, 936
Jesus and, 986
Cain, 870
Cainan, 938
Calendar, 933
Caligula, 1031, 1139
Herod Agrippa I and, 1033
Calvary, 893
Cana, 971
wedding at, 973
Candace, 1013-14
Capernaum, 820
Cappadocia, 1002
Caracalla, 1188
Carmanians, 1190
Carrhae, Battle of, 885
Carthage, 709, 733. 735
in Sicily, 1087
in Spain, 1095
Cassander, 1059
Cassius, 1057
Cenchrea, 1093
Census, 925-26
Centurion, 835
Chaldeans, 689
Charity, 1107-09
1284
INDEX OK SUBJECTS
Chinnereth, 821
Chios, 1074
Chloe, 1105
Christ, 856-57
Christian Era, 787
Christians, early, ioo5ff.
first use of name, 1029
Mosaic Law and, 1077
Christmas, 93off.
Christs, false, 874, 1 1 39
Cilicia, 1006-07, 101 ^
Circumcision, 803
Paul's views on, 1095-96,
1116-17
Cisalpine Gaul, 734
Clauda, 1086
Claudia Procula, 890
Claudius II, 1190
Claudius Caesar, 1031, 1076, 1080,
1083
Jews and, 1096
Clement, 1154
Cleopatra VII (queen of Egypt),
1016, 1197
Cleopatra (daughter of Ptolemy
VI), 742
Cleopatra (wife of Herod Philip),
814
Cnidus, 1084, 1086
Cologne, Three Kings of, 674
Colossac, 1128
Colossians, Epistle to the, ii28ff.
Colossus of Rhodes, 1076
Comets, 792
Comforter, 987-88
Constantine I, 789, 892, 1190
Cook, Captain, 1180
Corinth, 1065-6
Apollos in, 1 105-06
Church in, 1102
Corinthians, First Epistle to the,
1 102ff.
Corinthians, Second Epistle to the,
moff.
Cornelius, 1026
Cos, 1076
Covenant with God, 766
new, 768
Crassus, Marcus Licinius, 892,
1207
Crete, 1086
Croesus, 736, 1058
Crucifixion, 891-92
Crusades, 728
Cumantis, Ventidius, 1079
Cyaxares, 685
Cyprus, 1022-23
Saul (Paul) and Barnabas in,
io37ff.
Cyrene, 753, 892
Jewish revolt in, 1184
Cyrenius, 925
Cyrus, 796, 1 196
Dalmatia, 1148
Damascus, 826
under Romans, 1020
Daniel, Book of, Mcssianism and,
762, 837-38, 883
rededication of Temple and, 724
Daphne, 762
Darius I, 892
Darius II, 691
Darius III, 094, 701
death of, 703
David, 775, 909, 938
census and, 925
Day of judgment, 1218
Day of the Lord, 1136, 1167
Deacon, 1124
Dead Sea, 1179
Dead Sea scrolls, 807
Decapolis, 826
Decius, 1140
Deioces, 688
Demas, 1133
Demetrius I, 710, 730
Alexander Balas and, 741
death of, 742
Demetrius II, 743, 748, 755
death of, 751
Demetrius Polyorketes, 1076
Demetrius the silversmith, 1071
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
1285
Demiurge, 964
Demonic possession, 839, 907
Denis, Saint, 1065
Derbe, 1045
Diana, 1071-02
Didymus, 994
Dietary laws, 1026-27
Diocletian, 1140, 1190
Dionysian Era, 787
Dionysius I, 1088
Dionysius Exiguus, 787, 937
Dionysius the Areopagite, 1064-5
Disciple, Beloved, 954s.
Dismas, 951
Dives, 940
Domitian, 959, 1140, 1143, 1160,
1164, 1183, 1192, 1214, 1216
Dragon, 1209-10
Drusilla, 1080
Easter Sunday, 898, 933
Ecbatana, 680, 688
Edna, 684
Edom, 725
Egypt, 691
Jesus and, 797
Nubia and, 1012
under Ptolemies, 705-06
under Roman Empire, 1187-88
Rome and, 709, 714
Elam, 1001
Elamites, 689
Elders, 1124
Eleazar (high, priest), 758
Eleazar (Maccabean), 716
death of, 729
Eleazar (martyr), 763
Elephantine, 1013
Elephants, 729
Eliashib, 692
Elijah, 804
Jesus and, 857
Elisabeth, 918
Mary and, 920
Elisha, 803
Enoch, Book of, 1174, 1179
Epaphras, 1129
Epaphroditus, 1125
Ephesians, Epistle to the, 1119-21
Ephesus, 297, 1068
Church at, 1198-99
Temple of Diana at, 1072
Epictetus, 1148
Epicureans, 1062
Epicurus, 1062, 1075
Epimenides of Knossos, 1146
Epirus, 731
Epistles, pastoral, 1141
Era of the Maccabees, 748
Erastus, 1100-01, 1110
Esarhadden, 781, 1013
Esdras, Second Book of, 1 iy6fF.
Essenes, 807
Ethiopia, 1012
Ethiopian Dynasty, 1012
Ethnarch, 798
Eudoxus, 1086
Eumenes I, 736
Eumenes II, 737, 741, 1196
Eunice, 1053
Euodias, 1126
Euphrates, 1208
Eusebius, 916
Evangelists, 770
Ezekiel, Sabbath and, 847
Ezra, 1176
Fadus, Cuspius, 1079
Fair Havens, 1086
Felix, Antonius, 1079
Festus, Porcius, 1081, 1158
Flavian Dynasty, 1183
Fortunatus, 1103
Four Horsemen, 1203
Gabae, 728
Gabriel, 682, 918, 919, 1136, 1179
Gadarenes, 838
Gaius (in 1 Corinthians),
1 100-1101
Gaius (in 3 John), 1171
Galatia, 1114
Paul in, 1053-54
Galatians, 733
iz86
INDEX OK SUBJECTS
Calatians, Epistle to the, ni4ff.
Galba, 1216
Galilee, 64, 798
Jesus and, 800
Maccabean conquest of, 783
Galilee, Sea of, 821
Gall, 893-94
Gallienus, 1188
Gallio, Junius Annaeus, 1067, 1 104
Gamaliel I, 1004, 1018
Gamaliel VI, 1005
Gasper, 788
Gath-hepher, 971
Gauls, 733
Gematna, 1213
Gennesarat, 822
Gentile, 727
George, Saint, 1025-26
Gerasa, 839
Gerasenes, 839
Gergesenes, 838
Gerizim, Mount, 842
Gethsemane, 879
Ghost, 778
Gilead, 725, 798
Glastonbury, 896
Gnostics, 963, 1011, 1143
Gog, 1139, 1218
Golden Rule, 682
Golgotha, 893
Good Friday, 897
Gospel, 770
Graces, 1107
"Grecians," 1005
Greece, Rome and, 738
Gregory of Tours, 1065
Gymnasium, 712
Hades, 947
Hadrian, 1184
Halley's Comet, 792
Hamilcar, 1095
Hannah, 93;
Hannibal, 734, 735, 1095
Hanukkah, 723, 755
Harun-al-Rashid, 680
Hashmon, 716
Hasideans, 717
Hasmoneans, 716
Heaven, rich men and, 833
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 11525.
Helena, 788
Heliodorus, 759-60
Hell, 947-48
Heraclitus, 961, 1069
Hermes, 1046
Herod Agrippa I, 3695., 1080-81
Caligula and, 1033
Christians and, 1034
death of, 1035
Herod Agrippa II, 1081-84
Herod Antipas, 798, 800, 822
Jesus and, 190, 950
John the Baptist and, 851
last years of, 1033-34
marriage of, 814
Herod Archelaus, 798, 884, 949
deposition of, 885
Herodians, 867
Herodias, 814, 1033
John the Baptist and, 851
Herod of Calchas, 1033, 1082
Herodotus, 688
Herod Philip, 798, 814
Herod the Great, 786, 1033, 1080
death of, 787, 797
Jesus and, 793-94
Messianism and, 793
Sadducees and, 808
Temple in Jerusalem and, 977
Herostratus, 1073
Hierapolis, 1131
Hiero II, 1088
High priesthood, Antiochus IV
and, 760-61
Maccabean, 742, 784
in Persian times, 757
in Roman times, 873
Zadokite, 764
Hillel, 807
Hippocrates, 1076
Holofernes, 690
death of, 694-95
Holy Ghost, 778
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
1287
Holy Grail, 896
Holy Spirit, 810, 1000
Hosanna, 861
Hosea, 709, 768
Hydaspcs River, 689
Hymenaeus, 1143
Iconium, 1045
Idumca, 724-25
Maccabean conquest of, 783
India, 703, 737
Ionia, 1069
Irenaeus, 915, 960
Isaiah, virgin birth and, 781
Iscariot. See Judas Iscariot
Isfahan, 728
Israfel, 682, 1 179
Iturea, 798
Jacob, 819
Jaddua, 757
James (brother of Jesus), 1023
Council of Jerusalem and, 1050
death of, 1158
James (son of Alpheus), 908
James (son of Zebedee), 824, 858
death of, 958, 1039
James, Epistle of, 1158-59
Janus, Temple of, 924
Jason (brother of Onias III), 760
Jason of Cyrene, 753
Jason of Thessalonica, 1099
Jericho, 775
Jeroboam II, 709, 783
Jerome, 698
Jerusalem, 749
Antiochus IV and, 714
Christians in, 1077
entry of Jesus into, 860-862
Jesus as boy in, 935
Pompey in, 784
Pontius Pilate and, 886
Ptolemy I and, 718
Jerusalem, Council of, 1050
Jeshua, 692
Jesus, 769
age of, 937, 982-83
arrest of, 880
baptism of, 810
Bethlehem and, 794
birth of, 77 8ff., 781-82, 786,
92 3 fT.
boyhood of, 935
brothers of, 818, 849-50
burial of, 895
centurion and, 835
crucifixion of, 891ft., 950-51,
991
Davidic descent of, 780, 864-5
death of, 894
disciples of, 161ft., 969-70
Elijah and, 857
genealogy of, 773 s., 937-40
Gentiles and, 834-35
Gnostic view of, 964
as healer, 825-26
Herod Antipas and, 852, 950
high priests and, 874
Holy Spirit and, 810
Jerusalem and, 861
John the Baptist and, 809, 843,
065
Judas Iscariot and, 877-78
language of, 911
Melchizedek and, 1156-57
as Messiah, 836-38, 855-58,
968
Mosaic Law and, 828
Moses and, 796, 798, 857
in Nazareth, 816-17
parables of, 850-51
Pharisees and, 807, 843!!.
Pontius Pilate and, 888ff.
resurrection of, 896s., 997
Roman taxation and, 868
Sabbath and, 848
Samaritans and, 841, 980
Satan and, 811-12
Temple of Jerusalem and,
862-63
trial of, 883s.
Zebulon and Naphtali and, 815
Jesus, son of Sirach, 758
iz88
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Jews, 694, 981
apostate, 1063
language of, 1002
Jezebel, 777
Joash, 777
Johanan, 716
death of, 740
Johiachin, 777
Johiakim, 777
John (the apostle), 825-956(1.
in Ephesus, 1071
later life of, 959
Messianic kingdom and, 858
in Samaria, 1010
John Hyrcanus I, 750, 755, 783
Pharisees and, 808
Samaritan temple and, 842
John Hyrcanus II, 784
death of, 786
mutilation of, 785
Pharisees and, 808
John Mark (see Mark)
John the Baptist, 902
birth of, 317
Elijah and, 804
Essenes and, 807
execution of, 851
Herod Antipas and, 815
Herodias and, 815
imprisonment of, 813
Jesus and, 809, 843, 965
naming of, 922
sect of, 1071
John the Presbyter, 1169
John, First Epistle of, 1168
John, Second Epistle of, 1170
John, Third Epistle of, 1171
Joiakim, 692
Jonah, 971
Jonathan, 716, 727, 740
death of, 747
Demetrius I and, 741
Demetrius II and, 744
as high priest, 742
Spaita and, 747
Joram, 776-77
Joseph (husband of Mary), 780,
8l 7> 939
Joseph (nephew of Onias II), 759
Joseph Barsabbas, 998
Joseph of Arimathea, 895
Josephus, 716, 718, 731, 757, 815,
852, 873, 1158
Joshua, 750, 775
Josiah, 777, 1215
Jot, 828
Judaism, 757
Judas (brother of James), 941
Judas Iscariot, 841
betrayal by, 875-76
death of, 887
Judas kiss, 880
Judas Maccabeus, 716, 772
death of, 739
victories of, 719, 723, 731
Judas of Galilee, 926
Jude, 1172
Judc, Epistle of, 1172-75
Judea, 700
Alexander the Great and, 701
after destruction of Temple,
1184
census in, 925-26
famine in, 1031
Greek culture and, 711-12
Herodian dynasty and, 798
Maccabean dynasty and, 748
Parthians and, 785
procurators of, 1079
Rome and, 785, 830, 873, 925
Scleucids and, 707, 71711.
Judith, 693
Judith, Book of, 686ff.
Julias, 854
Jupiter (planet), 792
Kashta, 1012
Kerioth, 841
King's evil, 825
Laban, 819
I.acedemon, 745
Lady Day, 933
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1 289
Lamb, 1202
Lamb of God, 967
Laodicea, 1130
Church of, 1202
Laodikc, 1130
Last Supper, 878, 896, 954
Last Trump, 1136, 1179
Lazarus (of Bethany), 984
Lazarus (in parable), 946
Lcbbaeus, 1154
Legion, 910
Lesbos, 1074
Levi, 907
Leviathan, 1138, 1180-81, 1210
Libertines, synagogue of, 1007
Lives of the Twelve Caesars, The,
1183
Livy, 782
Logos, 96off.
Lois, 1053
Lord's Day, 898, 1194
Lord's Prayer, 831
Lot, 819
Lucanus, Marcus Annaeus, 1067
Lucius of Cyrene, 916
Luke, 914-15, 997, 1099
Mary and, 921
Paul and, 914-15, 1056, 1133
Luther, Martin, 1154
Lycaonia, 1045
Lycia, 1084
Lydda, 1025
Lydia (nation), 736, 1069
Lydia (woman), 1058
Lysias, 721, 729, 730
Lysias, Claudius, 1078
Lysimachus, 1195
Lystra, 1045
Maccabcan Kingdom, 717, 783
end of, 784
Maccabees, 717
Maccabees, First Book of, 695s.
authorship of, 698
Maccabees, Fifth Book of, 765
Maccabees, Fourth Book of, 765
Maccabees, Second Book of, 753
Maccabees, Third Book of, 764
Macedon, 700
Gauls and, 734
Paul in, 1056ft.
in Roman times, 1056s.
Rome and, 735
Machaerus, 815
Magdala, 899
Magdalene, Mary. See Mary Mag-
dalene
Magi, 788
Magnificat, 921
Magog, 1218
Malachi, Book of, Messianism and,
805
Malta, 1087
Malthace, 814
Mammon, 832
Manasseh (high priest), 758
Manassch (king), 690
Man of sin, 1138
Marcus Aurelius, 1064
Mariamne (Maccabean), 786, 1032
Mariamne (non-Maccabean), 814
Mark, 905, 1035, 1052, 1133
Paul and, 1042-4*
Mark Antony, 786, 923, 1057,
1147, 1197
at Tarsus, 1016
Martyr-tales, 763
Mary (mother of Jesus), 780
after the crucifixion, 998
at Cana, 974
at the crucifixion, 991
Elisabeth and, 920
in Ephesus, 1071
Luke and, 921
virginity of, 819, 919
Mary (wife of Cleophas), 819-20
Mary Magdalene, 899-900, 942,
1071
Mattathias, 716
sons of, 716
death of, 719
Matthew, 771, 908
Matthias, 998
Media, 680, 688, 737, 1001
1 29°
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Megiddo, 1215
Melchior, 788
Melchizedek, 789
Jesus and, 1 1 56-57
Mclita, 1087
Menelaus, 761, 763
Mesopotamia, 1001
Messiah, Bethlehem and, 794
Davidic descent of, 789, 864-67
in 2 Esdras, 1181
Messiahs, false, 1005
Messianism, Elijah and, 804
Herod and, 793
Jesus and, 836-38
in Maccabcan times, 772, 789
in Roman times, 789
Meteorites, 1072
Micah, Book of, Messianism and,
794
Michael, 682, 1 174
Miletus, 1075
Millennium, 1181, 1217
Mithradatcs I (Parthia), 720, 744,
749- 75 1
Mithradates VI (Pontus), 1061
Mithraism, 932
Mitylene, 1074
Modin, 716
Montanus, 988
Mormon, Book of, 1191
Mosaic Law, 828
Christians and, 1077
Paul and, 1040
Moses, 796
death of, 1 174
Jesus and, 857
Movable holidays, 933
Myra, 1084
Mysia, 1054
Nabatean Arabs, 725, 740
Nabopolassar, 685
Napata, 1012
Naphtha, 756
Nathan, 938-39
Nathanael, 970
Nazarene, 801
Nazareth, 801, 927
Jesus and, 817
Neapolis, 1057
Nebuchadnezzar, 677, 685, 686
Nectancbo II, 691
Nehemiah, 756
Nero, 772, 1002, 1067, 1080, 1083,
1122, 1139, 1163, 1192, 1209,
1213, 1216
Christians and, 1155
death of, 1212
Nerva, 1193
New Jerusalem, 1218
Nicanor, 731
Nicodcmus, 978
Nicolaitans, 1 199
Nicolas, 1199
Nicopolis, 1147
Nimrod, 796
Nineveh, 677, 686
North Galatia, 1114
Novatus, Marcus Annaeus, 1067
Nubia, 1012-14
Nubian Dynasty, 1012-13
Number of the Beast, 1013-14
Numerology, Biblical, 1013
Nunc Dimitas, 234
Octavian Caesar, 923, 1057, J1 47
Odenathus, 1190
Olives, Mount of, 859-60, 879
Onesiinus, 1150
Onias I, 757
Onias II, 758, 759
Onias III, 758, 759
Antiochus IV and, 760
murder of, 762
Ovid, 1046
Pallas, 1079, 1081
Pamphylia, 1002, 1076
Paul in, 1041-42
Paphos, 1038
Papias, 771, 905
Parables, 850-51
Paradise Lost, 832, 1179, 1211
Parchment, 737
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 1291
Parthia, 707, 720, 1001, 1203,
1207
Judea and, 785
Rome and, 885
Passover, 877
crucifixion and, 992-93
Parara, 1076
Paternoster, 831
Patmos, 959, 1192
Paul (see also Saul), 1040
in Athens, 1062
Barnabas and, 1051-52
in Berea, 1060
circumcision and, 1095-96,
1116-17
in Corinth, 1067, 1111
Council of Jerusalem and, 1050
in Ephesus, 1068
epistles of, 1091
Felix and, 1080
Gentiles and, 1043-44
health of, 1046-47
Herod Agrippa II and, 1084
in Jerusalem, 1077
journey to Rome of, 10848.
Luke and, 914-16
Mark and, 1042-43
marriage and, 1 1 20
Pharisees and, 1078
in Philippi, 1058
in Rome, 1089
slavery and, 1150-51
in Thessalonica, 1060
Paulus, Sergius, 1038-39
Pax Romana, 924
Peloponnesian War, 1061
Penn, William, 1201
Pentecost, 999
Pentecostal Churches, 1001
Perea, 798
Perga, 1042, 1049
Pergamum, 736, 1002 1131, 1196
library at, 737
Rome and, 737
Perseus, 735, 738, 1026
Persian Empire, 690
fall of, 703
Peter, 824, 855
Council of Jerusalem and, 1050
Gentile conversions and,
1027-28
imprisonment of, 1035
Jesus' arrest and, 881
Jesus' trial and, 884
in Lydda, 102?
Mark and, 900
Paul (Saul) and, 1023-24,
1049-50
in Rome, 1163
in Samaria, 1010
Simon Magus and, 1011
Peter, First Epistle of, 1161-1164
Peter, Second Epistle of, 1165-67
Petroleum, 756
Petronius, Gaius, 1014
Pharaoh-nechoh, 1215
Pharisees, 806, 840
apostles and, 1004-05
Jesus and, 844s.
Paul (Saul) and, 1018, 1078
Phebe, 1093
Philadelphia (Asia Minor), 1197,
1201
Philadelphia (United States), 1201
Philataerus, 736
Philemon, 1149
Philemon, Epistle to, 1149-51
Philip II, 700, 1057, 1059, 1061
Philip V, 735, 737
Philip the Apostle, 1071
Philip the Evangelist, 1008, 1010,
1076
Philip the tetrarch, 798, 814, 852,
854, 855, 1033
Philippi, 1057, 1123
Philippi, Battle of, 1057
Philippians, Epistle to the, ii22ff.
Philo Judaeus, 963, 1079
Phraates II, 751
Phraortes, 688
Phrygia, 1002
Paul in, 1053-54
Physcon, 713
Piankhi, 1012
1292 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Pilate. See Pontius Pilate
Pisidia, 1043
Planets, 1198
Plato, 964
Polycarp, 960
Polycrates, 1074
Pompey
death of, 785
Pontius Pilate, 885
Jesus and, 888ft\, 989-90
later life of, 891
wife of, 890
Pontus, 1002
Pope, 855
Potter's held, 887
Priest, 1124
Priscilla, 1066, 1097
Procurator, 885
Pscudo-Dionysius, 1065
Ptolemais, 728, 742
Ptolemies, 677
Ptolemy I, 705, 706, 718, 757
Ptolemy II, 706, 709
Ptolemy III, 706, 759
Ptolemy IV, 706, 765
Ptolemy V, 706, 713
Ptolemy VI, 713, 741, 743, 755
Ptolemy VII, 713, 755
Ptolemy (Maccabean), 751
Publicans, 829
Punjab, 689
Puteoli, 1089
Pyrrhus, 731
Pythagoras, 1074
Pythia, 1000
Quakers, 1029
Quirinius, 925
Rabbi, 972
Rages (Rhages), 680, 689
Rahab, 775
Raguel, 684
Ramathaim-Zophim, 896
Raphael, 682
Raphia, Battle of, 765
Remus, 782
Resurrection, doctrine of, 806
Revelation, Book of, 1190s.
authorship of, 1190-92
Rhazes, 680
Rhegium, 1088
Rhodes, 1076
Roman Empire, 924
Romans, Epistle to the, 1091 ff.
Rome, 700, 731 ff.
Alexander Balas and, 741
as "Babylon," 1163, 1178, 1214,
1215
Carthage and, 733
civil war in, 785
Corinth and, 1065-6
founding of, 709, 782
Greek cities ana, 731
Jews and, 1093, 1096
Judea and, 884-85, 925
Maccabees and, 731, 784
Macedon and, 735
Messianism ana, 793
Nubia and, 1014
Parthia and, 885
Paul in, 1089
Pergamuni and, 1197
senate of, 1124
taxation by, 830
Romulus, 782, 796
Rufus, 1098
Ruth, 775
Sabbath, 718
after the Exile, 848
Lord's Day and, 098
origin of, 846
Sadducees, 806
Paul and, 1078
Saint, 770
Saint John, Gospel of, 952ff.
authorship of, 952s.
Saint Luke, Gospel of, 91 2ff
authorship of, 912-16
Saint Mark, Gospel of, 903ff.
authorship of, 903-05
Saint Matthew, Gospel of, 766s.
authorship of, 771-72
original language of, 771
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
1293
Saint Paul's Bay, 1087
Salamis (Cyprus), 1038
Salamis (near Athens), 1038
Salma, 775
Salmon, 775
Salmone, Cape, 1086
Salome, 852
Salonica, 1060
Samaria, 679
Maccabean conquest of, 783
in Roman times, 1010-11
Samaritan, Good, 943-44
Samaritans, 942
Jesus and, 980
Jews and, 944
Samos, 1074
Samothrace, 1057
Samson, 801
Samuel, 896
Sapphira, 1003
Sappho, 1074
Sara, 681
Sardis, 1058, 1196
Sargon, 679
Sassanid Empire, 1180
Satan, 779, 1139, 1210
Jesus and, 811-12
Saturn (god), 932
Saturn (planet), 792
Saturnalia, 932
Saul (the apostle, see also Paul),
1014
change of name of, 1038-40
conversion of, 1020-21
in Damascus, 1021-22
education and family of, 1018
famine at Jerusalem and, 1037
as Roman citizen, 1017
Stephen's death and, 1019
Saul (king), 1000
Scipio, 735
Scribes, 844
Sebaste, 1010
Second Coming, 871, 957, 1137
Scjanus, Lucius Aelius, 885
Seleucia (on Mediterranean), 1037
Seleucia (on Tigris), 722
Seleucid Empire, 705, 711
decline of, 744
end of, 784
Seleucids, 677, 705
Sclcucus I, 705, 707, 711, 722, 736,
1037, 1043, 1058
Seleucus II, 707
Seleucus III, 707
Seleucus IV, 710, 730, 758
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, 1067
Sennacherib, 680, 1013
Sermon on the Mount, 8271!.
Seron, 720
Seven, significance of, 1197-98
Seven Wonders of the World,
1073, 1076
Shabuoth, 999
Shakers, 1001
Shalmancser, 679
Shapur I, 1190
Shechcm, 692
Sheol, 947
Sicarii, 841
Sicily, 1087
Side, 750
Silas, 1051, 1161
Silvanus, 1051
Silvia, 782
Simalcue, 745
Simeon, 934
Simon I (high priest), 758
Simon II (high priest), 758
Simon (Maccabean), 716, 727, 748
death of, 751
sons of, 750
Simon (son of Annas), 873
Simon (Zadokite), 759, 761
Simonians, 1011
Simon Magus, 1010-11
Simon of Cyrene, 892, 1098
Simon Peter, 823-24
Simon the Cananean, 840
Simony, 1011
Sinai, Mount, 768
Sisyphus, 947
Slaughter or the Innocents, 795
Slavery, 1150-51
1294
INDEX OF SUBJF.CTS
Smyrna, 1195
Sodomitish Sea, 1179
Solstice, 932
Son of God, 810
Son of Man, 837
Sopater, 1099-1100
Sosipater, 1099
Sosthenes, 1104
South Galatia, 1114
Spain, 734
Spartacus, 892
Sparta, 745, 1061, 1067, 1124
Spirit, 779
Star of Bethlehem, 790-92
Stephanus, 1104
Stephen, 1006-08
Saul and, 1019
Stoics, 1063
Suetonius, 1183
Sulla, 1061
Sun, movements of, 931
Supernovae, 791
Susiana, 1001
Sylvanus, 1161
Synoptic gospels, 770
Syntyche, 1126
Syracuse, 1087
Syria, 705
Syzygos, 1127
Taharqa, 1013
Talent, 872
Tamar, 774
Tamerlane, 1196
Tantalus, 948
Tarquinius Superbus, 709
Tarshish, 1094
Tarsus, 1016
Tartarus, 947
Tartessus, 1094
Temple of Jerusalem, Antiochus IV
and, 714
destruction by Romans of, 1155,
1164, 1178, 1183
Herod and, 977
Jesus and, 862-63
Pompey and, 784
rededication of, 723
Ten Lost Tribes, 1185
Tertius, 1100
Testament, New, 769
Testament, Old, 769
Testaments of trie Twelve Patri-
archs, 789
Tetrarch, 798
Thales, 901, 1075
Thebes, 746
Theophilus, 916, 997
Therm a, 1059
Thessalonians, First Epistle to the,
1134-36
Thessalonians, Second Epistle to
the, 1137-40
Thessalonica (city), 1059
Church at, 1134
Thessalonica (woman), 1060
Thomas, doubting, 994
Thutmose III, 821, 1215
Thyatira, 1058
Tiamat, 1138, 1210
Tiberias, 822
Tiberias, Sea of, 823
Tiberius Alexander, 1079
Tiberius Caesar, 936, 1031
death of, 1033
Tigris River, 683
Timothy, 1053, 1099, 1110, 1123,
1134
later life of, 1142-43
Timothy, First Epistle to, 1141-43
Timothy, Second Epistle to,
1144-45
Tittle, 828
Titus (Paul's companion),
1112-1113
Titus (Roman general), 1083, 1183
Titus, Epistle to, 1 146-48
Tobias, 682
Tobit, 677
Tobit, Book of, 677!!.
Tongues, gift of, iooo, 1 109
Trachonitis, 936
Trajan, 959, 1184
Transfiguration, 857
Transjordan, 740
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
1295
Troas, 1054
Trogyllium, 1075
Troy, 1055
Tryphon, 744, 750
Tychicus, 1120-21, 1131, 1149
Tyre, 1076
Uriel, 682, 1179
Uzziah, 709, 777
Valerian, 1190
Vespasian, 1183, 1216
Virgin birth, 781-82
Virgin Mary, 780
Visitation, 920
Wandering Jew, 958
Week, days of, 1198
Wisdom, Divine, 962
Wise Men, Three, 787
Word, The, gooff., 1168
World War I, 1204
Xerxes, 685, 700, 745
Yahveh, 964
Zacharias (father of John the Bap-
tist), 917
Zacharias (son of Bacharias), 869
Zadok, 757
end of line of, 764
Zama, Battle of, 735
Zealots, 840, 1158
Herod Agrippa II and, 1083
Zebedee, 825
Zechariah (high priest), 869
Zechariah, Book of, Judas lscariot
and, 876, 888
Messianism and, 860
Zeno, 1063
Zerah, 774
Zerubbabel, 692, 772, 777, 937
Zeus, 671, 1046
Zeus- Yahveh, 715
Zoroastrians, 788
In Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Isaac
Asimov explores the historical, geograph-
ical, and biographical aspects of the
events described in the Old and New
Testaments. Asimov's attempts to illumi-
nate the Bible's many obscure, mysterious
passages prove absorbing reading for
anyone interested in religion and history.
ISBN 0-517-34582-X
780517
345825
9 0Q0 0>
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11